httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:20:57 GMT
Ummm hrmm:

   "A hurry backport is causing this and there is hardly
    tested in real live. Hopefully ASF comes with a patch soon. "

So you know what's causing this? Please point out the exact
"hurry backport" so we can look there.

And again, WHAT OTHER 3rd party modules are having problems??
Can you provide ANY FURTHER information other than cryptic "its
not working" messages followed by "ASF hates Windows users"
comments??

If we *knew* what the problems were, we'd try like heck to fix
'em. I know Bill looked hard and long, but had no luck,
mostly because the amount of real concrete data was woefully
lacking.

On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Steffen wrote:

> Better we stop this thread.
>
> See the post at: http://www.apachelounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php? 
> p=8691 , please do not reply to that post.
>
> Steffen
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jaguNET.com>
> To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
> 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" :)
>>
>


Mime
View raw message