Mailing-List: contact users-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20140410184029.GB27868@munich.parts-unknown.org>
References: <5346D835.5010703@buymro.net>
 <20140410184029.GB27868@munich.parts-unknown.org>
From: Tyler Wilson <kupo@linuxdigital.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:52:35 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAMPxEH81k051vutYAPxuJEciSyV6ejRGeb6WdZjVhW1x3fhTmw@mail.gmail.com>
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec555503ca2938404f6b4b90d
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

--bcaec555503ca2938404f6b4b90d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I just recently attempted upgrading an old cluster to 2.4 however due to
massive use of old .htaccess rules with allow/denies it simply wasn't worth
the effort to migrate everything to the new configurations.


On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:40 AM, David Benfell
<benfell@parts-unknown.org>wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:43:17PM -0500, Joey J wrote:
> > Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only
> > used by 2.5% of active Apache sites.   Why is the adoption so low??
> > The Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for
> > some time and looking at the improvements I see significant value in
> > several.  I don't see any reason why anybody wouldn't want to use it
> > but the community seems to think it's bad.
> >
> I'm actually fighting my way through this upgrade now. It's not that I
> think 2.4 is bad. Not at all. It's just that the upgrade is difficult
> and I have other things I need to be working on.
>
> --
> David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org>
> See https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you don't understand the
> attachment.
>

--bcaec555503ca2938404f6b4b90d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I just recently attempted upgrading an old cluster to 2.4 =
however due to massive use of old .htaccess rules with allow/denies it simp=
ly wasn&#39;t worth the effort to migrate everything to the new configurati=
ons.<div class=3D"gmail_extra">

<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:40 AM, David =
Benfell <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:benfell@parts-unknown.org" =
target=3D"_blank">benfell@parts-unknown.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc=
 solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div class=3D"">On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:43:17PM -0500, Joey J wrote:<br>
&gt; Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only<b=
r>
&gt; used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. =A0 Why is the adoption so low??<=
br>
&gt; The Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for<br>
&gt; some time and looking at the improvements I see significant value in<b=
r>
&gt; several. =A0I don&#39;t see any reason why anybody wouldn&#39;t want t=
o use it<br>
&gt; but the community seems to think it&#39;s bad.<br>
&gt;<br>
</div>I&#39;m actually fighting my way through this upgrade now. It&#39;s n=
ot that I<br>
think 2.4 is bad. Not at all. It&#39;s just that the upgrade is difficult<b=
r>
and I have other things I need to be working on.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
David Benfell &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:benfell@parts-unknown.org">benfell@part=
s-unknown.org</a>&gt;<br>
See <a href=3D"https://parts-unknown.org/node/2" target=3D"_blank">https://=
parts-unknown.org/node/2</a> if you don&#39;t understand the<br>
attachment.<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div>

--bcaec555503ca2938404f6b4b90d--