Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of info@apachelounge.com
 designates 213.46.255.22 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <004401c7f0c2$02f830d0$0100a8c0@mother>
From: "Steffen" <info@apachelounge.com>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
References: <BA0C654B-DAE6-44AB-BC2E-A66AADC1B4AA@jaguNET.com>
 <68CC494D-8EDD-4017-84B0-4C9ECA9357B9@jaguNET.com>
 <001601c7f097$6ee667b0$0100a8c0@mother>
 <0108F69F-5F1D-4E65-83FD-C891ADF1FE06@jaguNET.com>
 <002a01c7f0bd$134dcee0$0100a8c0@mother>
 <152DC8C6-696E-4772-80FF-C61CC188AC33@jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6,
 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:08:36 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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" :)
>
>