httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <ra...@Covalent.NET>
Subject Re: Configure vs. configure: Please read
Date Wed, 02 Dec 1998 16:26:17 GMT
Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> writes:
> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> > 
> > In article <x7n257mlh5.fsf@montana.covalent.net> you wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm sure a few folks are getting tired of this debate... Please give
> > > some feedback and hopefully we can bury this.
> > 
> > > Issues:
> > >  * Confusion as to which method to use
> > 
> > My opinion: One one single method, yes. So I support your merging idea in
> > general. The difference is just that some people use this method as
> > "./Configure -file" and others with APACI options.
> 
> I agree. I just don't know if the 1.3.x tree is the place to make
> this change. No matter which one we choose, it causes changes for
> half the people out there. And a 1.3.3->1.3.4 version bump doesn't
> seem the right for it.

I've come to the same conclusion. This work needs to move to the 2.0
branch IMO.

> Question: This is kind of touchy, but when have I let that stop me? :)
>           At what point does a file no longer "warrant" the "Written by
> 	  <name>" line, esp when it's part of the official Apache
> 	  source? Awhile ago I added some "acknowledgments" to the
> 	  helper files, but I did that as a direct reaction to such
> 	  acknowledgements in other scripts and files. I'm going
> 	  to reverse these, since this doesn't seem to be in keeping
> 	  with the "group" mentality. CHANGES and the CVS logs already
> 	  do that.

I must agree that these types of attributions are not the norm and I
would encourage their removal by the author.


-Randy



Mime
View raw message