You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2006/05/17 22:44:13 UTC
1.3.36 Released...
Hmmm... I have not seen the Announcement make it out yet. I sent
them this am. I'll give a bit more time and then
re-announce :)
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
Re: 1.3.36 Released...
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> What I'm saying is that there is a BIG difference between
> actively *supported* and actively *developed*. As far
> as I'm concerned, we still support 1.3.x, for our
> huge install base of legacy users.
>
> Yes, we should encourage people to move up to 2.2.x,
> but we shouldn't do so by misleading them that we no
> longer support 1.3.
Doesn't the fact that we are releasing updates demonstrate that there
is some level of maintanance? It can be -clearly- designated as legacy,
maintanance, or both, without suggesting there is no support.
Besides, it's ASF software, it's never been supported ;-)
Bill
Re: 1.3.36 Released...
Posted by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>.
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 11:38:53AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> What I'm saying is that there is a BIG difference between actively
> *supported* and actively *developed*. As far as I'm concerned, we
> still support 1.3.x, for our huge install base of legacy users.
What does "support" mean in this context? Are we talking about
responding to security notices, producing security-related patches and
security-related releases?
Why would we ever stop doing that as long as someone was willing to
write the patch?
Just genuinely curious :)
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
Re: 1.3.36 Released...
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On May 18, 2006, at 11:25 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> On May 17, 2006, at 5:55 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> The Apache Software Foundation and The Apache HTTP Server
>>> Project are
>>> pleased to announce the release of version 1.3.36 of the
>>> Apache HTTP
>>> Server ("Apache"). This Announcement notes the significant
>>> change
>>> in 1.3.36 as compared to 1.3.35.
>>>
>>> nowhere in here do we we use the word legacy or maintenance or
>>> any other
>>> discouragement that this isn't actively supported software.
>> because it is not NOT "actively supported software". :)
>
> Are you suggesting that Apache 1.3 is not universally accepted on
> this list
> as being at best a maintenance branch? The last release 1.3.35
> definately
> proves that it's barely that, irrespective of who/how the patch was
> adopted,
> the candidate was clearly marginally tested - although the *entire*
> community
> had an opportunity to test the candidate.
>
What I'm saying is that there is a BIG difference between
actively *supported* and actively *developed*. As far
as I'm concerned, we still support 1.3.x, for our
huge install base of legacy users.
Yes, we should encourage people to move up to 2.2.x,
but we shouldn't do so by misleading them that we no
longer support 1.3.
Re: 1.3.36 Released...
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On May 17, 2006, at 5:55 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> The Apache Software Foundation and The Apache HTTP Server Project are
>> pleased to announce the release of version 1.3.36 of the Apache HTTP
>> Server ("Apache"). This Announcement notes the significant change
>> in 1.3.36 as compared to 1.3.35.
>>
>> nowhere in here do we we use the word legacy or maintenance or any other
>> discouragement that this isn't actively supported software.
>
> because it is not NOT "actively supported software". :)
Are you suggesting that Apache 1.3 is not universally accepted on this list
as being at best a maintenance branch? The last release 1.3.35 definately
proves that it's barely that, irrespective of who/how the patch was adopted,
the candidate was clearly marginally tested - although the *entire* community
had an opportunity to test the candidate.
Speaking of which - who has a hankering to add Includes wildcard, subdir and
<section>nested</section> semantics to the perl-framework suite ;-?
That said, I'm looking for your theory before I ask for a vote to clarify.
> Agreed that the 1.3 announcement is due for a overhaul.
:) Thank you.
Re: 1.3.36 Released...
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On May 17, 2006, at 5:55 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> * Many don't really read beyond the first paragraph, it sticks
> first and
> foremost in folks brains;
>
> The Apache Software Foundation and The Apache HTTP Server
> Project are
> pleased to announce the release of version 1.3.36 of the Apache
> HTTP
> Server ("Apache"). This Announcement notes the significant change
> in 1.3.36 as compared to 1.3.35.
>
> nowhere in here do we we use the word legacy or maintenance or
> any other
> discouragement that this isn't actively supported software.
>
because it is not NOT "actively supported software". :)
> * The language below -still- reads like 1.3 has a big cheering squad;
>
> We consider Apache 1.3.36 to be the best version of Apache 1.3
> available
> and we strongly recommend that users of older versions,
> especially of
> the 1.1.x and 1.2.x family, upgrade as soon as possible. No
> further
> releases will be made in the 1.2.x family.
>
> In general, Apache 1.3 offers several substantial improvements over
> version 1.2, including better performance, reliability and a wider
> range of supported platforms, including Windows NT and 2000 (which
> fall under the "Win32" label), OS2, Netware, and TPF threaded
> platforms.
>
> Can we chop most of 1.3's announcement to read more like a bullet
> point
> in history, rather than lauding our minor maintenance accomplishment?
>
Agreed that the 1.3 announcement is due for a overhaul.
Re: 1.3.36 Released...
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Hmmm... I have not seen the Announcement make it out yet. I sent
> them this am. I'll give a bit more time and then
> re-announce :)
Announcement1.3 17-May-2006 13:08 4.4K Apache 1.3 Release Note
Announcement1.3.html 17-May-2006 13:26 5.6K Apache 1.3 Release Note
Announcement1.3.txt 17-May-2006 13:26 4.4K Apache 1.3 Release Note
Why three files? Negotation should give the user .html or .txt as appropriate,
could you delete your extra Announcement1.3 [no ext]?
If you review http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/Announcement2.2.txt you will see
we've further toned down 1.3 and 2.0 to draw less attention;
Apache HTTP Server 1.3.35 and 2.0.58 legacy releases are also available
with minor bugfixes. See the appropriate CHANGES from the url above.
The Apache HTTP Project developers strongly encourages all users to
migrate to Apache 2.2, as only limited maintenance is performed on these
legacy versions.
and I'm finding the Announcement1.3 increasingly irritating, and approve
of whichever moderator (not me!) didn't let it pass ;-) Specifically,
* Many don't really read beyond the first paragraph, it sticks first and
foremost in folks brains;
The Apache Software Foundation and The Apache HTTP Server Project are
pleased to announce the release of version 1.3.36 of the Apache HTTP
Server ("Apache"). This Announcement notes the significant change
in 1.3.36 as compared to 1.3.35.
nowhere in here do we we use the word legacy or maintenance or any other
discouragement that this isn't actively supported software.
* The language below -still- reads like 1.3 has a big cheering squad;
We consider Apache 1.3.36 to be the best version of Apache 1.3 available
and we strongly recommend that users of older versions, especially of
the 1.1.x and 1.2.x family, upgrade as soon as possible. No further
releases will be made in the 1.2.x family.
In general, Apache 1.3 offers several substantial improvements over
version 1.2, including better performance, reliability and a wider
range of supported platforms, including Windows NT and 2000 (which
fall under the "Win32" label), OS2, Netware, and TPF threaded
platforms.
Can we chop most of 1.3's announcement to read more like a bullet point
in history, rather than lauding our minor maintenance accomplishment?
Bill