httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steffen" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:08:36 GMT
Better we stop this thread.

See the post at: , 
please do not reply to that post.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Jagielski" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 21:47
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate 
tarballs for review

> On Sep 6, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Steffen wrote:
>>> I'm assuming the "we" is you, right?
>> It is not just me. We are a team and of course the users. Just as  an 
>> example
>> the other post from me here which is a report from an other  webmaster. I
>> report here test results from the Apache Windows Community from the 
>> Apache
>> Lounge,  mostly I receive them by mail.
> You said that "we" need to:
>   "advise the users not to use 2.2.6 because is not compatible with  some 
> mods"
> which, afaik, is not the case. You reported issues with mod_fcgid, which
> may be true, but that hasn't been confirmed by anyone else, nor do
> I see reports to support the "some mods" statement as well.
> Unless, of course, the cryptic phrase "An other report"
> actually means "The below is a report from someone else
> who is also seeing an issue" instead of "Oh, by the way, I
> also tried this personally and I see that mod_cgi is working OK
> for me..."...
> With all this being the case, I can't see holding up a release nor
> can I see us ("us" being the ASF) making some blanket statement that
> Win32 users should not use 2.2.6 because it is not compatible with
> some mods... If we had some more supporting data for that, then
> maybe...
>> Maybe we have to patch 2.2.6 to get it error-free.
> Well, there is the patches directory that, if we discover
> a bug, allows people to download the patch and rebuild. Of
> course, this all means tracking down and discovering the
> bug with some detailed debugging info rather than a "it
> doesn't work" :)

View raw message