httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: [PATCH] PR #6397
Date Sun, 01 Oct 2000 21:28:09 GMT
In some ways I agree, but the method that the patch adds is one most admins
already know and use (certainly within the unix world) so it's not a huge
leap and is comfortingly familiar, whereas include directives aren't always
that obvious...

How much more complex would it make 2.0?  I know the config system is
different...

Just a quick 2p...

david

----- Original Message -----
From: <rbb@covalent.net>
To: "Apache (new-httpd)" <new-httpd@apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR #6397


>
> Are we bringing our config system too far?  I'll put on my Dean hat and
> say that this could be done with the existing config system, by just
> adding an INCLUDE directive, and putting another file in the included
> file.  Having spent some time in our config parser, I would prefer to make
> our config system simpler, not more complex.
>
> I am definately -1 (vote not veto) for 1.3 and -0.5 for 2.0.
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, David Reid wrote:
>
> > Seems like a logical extension.  Do we want to do this for 1.3 though?
> >
> > +1 for 2.0
> > +0 for 1.3
> >
> > david
> >
> >
> > > Here's my suggested patch for PR #6397. It's a bit more in keeping
with
> > > current coding, and maybe a bit more vocal.
> > >
> > > Index: src/CHANGES
> > > ===================================================================
> > > RCS file: /home/cvs/apache-1.3/src/CHANGES,v
> >
> >
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
___
> Ryan Bloom                        rbb@apache.org
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
>


Mime
View raw message