Our image, up-to-date website, and PR #44

[Rodent of Unusual Size <co...@decus.org>]

    The chap who's elevated Jason's blood pressure does raise a point,
    even if not in the most pleasant of ways; there are some aspects of
    www.apache.org that could do with some attention.  Two that leap to
    mind:

     1. [For the third time] bug_report.html still has an highlighted
        present-tense note about AOL's proxy problem - which was fixed a
    	month ago.
     2. Out-of-date/incomplete contents of the bugdb (accessible via
        bugdb.cgi):  Roy has already raised this, and it appears to
    	getting [some of] the attention it deserves.  I'll repeat my
    	offer to help out with this, since I'm not enough of an IP-heavy
    	to aid in the current FIN_WAIT_2 and related issues.

    For the latter, my guess would be that the bugdb would profit from
    someone scanning the apache-bugs mail against it, and adding any
    missing entries - then they can be reviewed to see which ones are
    actually fixed.  Does the `acked' versus `not acked' note I see on a
    lot of the forwarded reports pass any judgment about the validity of
    the report?  I.e., should a `not acked' report go into the bugdb?
    Or is that just indicating that the forwarder didn't have time to
    let the originator know we got it?

    On a related note..  PR #44 can be closed, I think, because the
    documentation for mod_header explicitly says that the "Server"
    header may not be overridden by the "Header set" directive - which
    is what #44 is trying (and failing) to do.

    #ken    :-)}

Re: Our image, up-to-date website, and PR #44

[Rob Hartill <ro...@imdb.com>]

On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

>     I.e., should a `not acked' report go into the bugdb?
>     Or is that just indicating that the forwarder didn't have time to
>     let the originator know we got it?


'not acked' just means the submitter hasn't got a reply yet. That can be
for any number of reasons.