Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Message-ID: <011901c1ac0c$253156a0$94c0b0d0@v505>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@covalent.net>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
References: 
 <sc5ac83f.077@prv-mail20.provo.novell.com><3C5B3702.9080000@apache.org><20020202013451.GG22287@ebuilt.com><20020201181639.R19906@lyra.org>
 <15451.23293.799096.559364@tin.cozy.org>
Subject: Re: lose the underscores! (was: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2))
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:03:06 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

From: "Ben Hyde" <bhyde@pobox.com>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 9:20 PM


> Greg Stein wrote:
>  > On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 05:34:51PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>  > >...
>  > > http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2_0_31-alpha.tar.gz
>  > 
>  > Why can't we name our damned tarballs and resulting directories like all
>  > other packages out there?
> 
> A superstitious behavior involving a fear of the Windows handling of
> extensions.  One of those things I recall feeling strongly about at
> the time. - ben

And there was a day, not long ago, that foo.x.y.z would have choked a good
number of Win32 filesystems, especially if the files lived on Netware or
LanMan Network shares.

I'd safely pronounce those days nearly gone, and 2.0 is as good a time as
any to change this convention.  We have a number of index.html.foo files
out there, that couldn't even be unpacked.  So many files in our cvs are
mult-extension that having a 2.0.31 really isn't a big issue.

[If it doesn't unpack into the top level correctly - the user can guess
that the contents below are mucked up as well :-]

Bill