httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Peter J. Cranstone" <peter.cranst...@secure64.com>
Subject RE: [RFC] Patch for mod_log_config to allow conditioning on status code
Date Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:46:22 GMT
>> Of course.  Apache 1.3 is an old, legacy application, and vastly less
>> capable than current versions.

But millions and millions of users rely on it everyday. What might help
migration is a simple chart showcasing the differences between 2.x and 1.x 

I'm no power user of Apache but I still can't see why Apache 2.x is a "MUST
HAVE" vs. a stable product in use by millions of users.

Apache is facing a marketing problem not a technology problem


Peter
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Kew [mailto:nick@webthing.com] 
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 6:31 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Patch for mod_log_config to allow conditioning on status
code

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Glenn Strauss wrote:

> I don't want to discourage Luc, but there's a steep uphill battle
> to getting anything into Apache 1.3.

Of course.  Apache 1.3 is an old, legacy application, and vastly less
capable than current versions.  It's still maintained, but noone is in
the business of adding new *features*.

2.1 is where interesting things happen, while 2.0 is intermediate: new
features may be added, but stability and binary-compatibility are more
important.  I might review and incorporate a third-party patch for 2.x,
but certainly wouldn't for 1.x unless someone was paying.

> diff -ruN apache_1.3.31/src/main/http_log.c
apache_1.3.31-new/src/main/http_log.c
> --- apache_1.3.31/src/main/http_log.c   2004-02-16 17:29:33.000000000
-0500
> +++ apache_1.3.31-new/src/main/http_log.c       2004-05-24
12:26:06.000000000 -0400

Bugzilla is a good place for patches like that.  People who want it can
help themselves, without compromising stability.

-- 
Nick Kew


Mime
View raw message