Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 60997 invoked by uid 500); 1 Oct 2000 21:26:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 60979 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2000 21:26:37 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: koj: rbb owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 14:27:08 -0700 (PDT) From: rbb@covalent.net X-Sender: rbb@koj To: "Apache (new-httpd)" Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR #6397 In-Reply-To: <008b01c02bed$5948ca40$0a1aa8c0@jetnet.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------