Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact docs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list docs@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 89735 invoked from network); 25 Dec 2002 15:16:47 -0000 Received: from 198-93-112-61.xdsl.qx.net (HELO rhiannon.rcbowen.com) (198.93.112.61) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Dec 2002 15:16:47 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rhiannon.rcbowen.com (8.10.2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id gBPFGme02595 for ; Wed, 25 Dec 2002 10:16:48 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 10:16:40 -0500 (EST) From: Rich Bowen To: Subject: Re: TransferLog in ssl.conf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Astrid Kessler wrote: > >> I'm also wondering why we do not mark the TransferLog directive as > >> deprecated and remove them in a later release 2.2 or 2.4 or so. In my > >> eyes it's only a short form of CustomLog which is easy to use but not > >> really neccessary and may confuse the user. Or do I miss something? > > > > My changes to the docs, are, as always, purely selfish. I don't like > > having to explain things in class if I don't have to. ;-) > > > > But, seriously ... > > > > I always had the impression that the TransferLog was purely for > > backward compatibility with NCSA. I can't say I particularly mind > > having it around, but I would like to have the default configuration > > files reflect *recommended* configuration, not merely a functional > > one. > > ehm, sorry, I may have been mistakable. I didn't ask about the conf > changes. I agree with you. This was meant with my +1. > I asked (maybe at the wrong list) about a note in the docs like > "This directive is deprecated and will be removed in version 2.2. Please > use CustomLog instead." > And then remove the directive from the code in HEAD (or in future). > > hm, or did I misunderstood your answer? I think that we are in agreement. I thought you meant not remove that from the conf file until 2.2 or 2.4, but I clearly did not real your note carefully enough. I expect that a recommendation to remove that directive entirely should be made on dev@, rather than here, although I'm sure that there are people here that would have opinions on it as well. Meanwhile, I'll hold off on the change until people trickle back from their Chrismas holidays, and have a chance to comment. - -- And everyone said, "If we only live, We too will go to sea in a Sieve - To the hills of the Chankly Bore!" (The Jumblies, by Edward Lear) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6 iD8DBQE+CcvgXP03+sx4yJMRAjE/AJ9uhgcpYAxaiSoaAXYIwvnE3U3koQCcCj4T KKcklhdBEjcISEDptYyYp8k= =tsJ8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----