httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: 1.3.21 fails on NetWare... please check other platforms..
Date Sat, 06 Oct 2001 21:35:28 GMT
From: "Martin Kraemer" <Martin.Kraemer@Fujitsu-Siemens.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 4:23 PM


> On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 11:09:53PM +0200, Kraemer, Martin wrote:
> > 
> > I don't recap the reason for Ken's veto. Ken?
> 
> At some time in the past, Ken said:
> 
> >> -1 for 1.3.  (Yes, that is a retroactive veto.)  It breaks
> >> checkout as it currently stands (which could be fixed), and
> >> certainly violates the Principle of Least Astonishment for
> >> people upgrading from 1.3.20 or earlier.
> 
> But my change *NEVER* broke CVS, as I didn't move anything inside CVS.
> It was a pure install thing, to ease manageability for the end user.
> 
> CVS had been broken in the past, and was corrected in the mean time,
> unrelated to this logical shift of /manual out of /htdocs, which was
> also announced in CHANGES and Announcement.
> 
> So, I still am +1 for this change, and +1 for the 1.3.21 tar ball.
> 
> Ken, if you read this, please decide if your veto still stands, and
> explain why.

I'll at least explain my position, and retract my veto (but I'm still
-.5 on this change for 1.3 because...)

Folks install over existing 1.3 directories.  If they do so, they will
discover;

apache/htdocs/manual
apache/manual

That means they won't know which is which, and if they don't update their
httpd.conf (I've caught a lot of folks at that) they won't have the new
docs with recent changes, at least not readily accessable.  They may
still refer to the existing docs, without noticing they are wrong.

That's it, not-a-veto.  So Ken, we anxiously await your comments :)

Bill


Mime
View raw message