You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> on 2014/04/04 13:35:34 UTC
Re: svn commit: r1584582 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:44 AM, <yl...@apache.org> wrote:
> + * manuals: Remove modules' compatibility references to httpd < 2.4 and
> + OpenSSL < 0.9.8.
> + trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1584555
> + http://svn.apache.org/r1584572
> + 2.4.x patch: https://people.apache.org/~ylavic/httpd-2.4.x-manuals-obsolete-compatibility.patch
> + +1: ylavic
FYI not necessary to propose docs-only changes in STATUS, they are CTR.
Re: svn commit: r1584582 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET
<ch...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Just in case, removal of compatibility notes against 2.3.x has been
> discussed a few months ago.
> See http://marc.info/?t=138619128300001&r=1&w=2
>
> No real concensus about it.
Ouch, I already backported the changes.
Should I revert all that?
> I'm still +1 for removing these references.
So am I, since there are different manuals for 2.2, 2.4 (and even 2.5).
> I'm not sure that the compatibility notes are really consistent in the
> current tree. I am quite sure that some configuration options have been
> added or enhanced without stating in which version it happened.
> I have in my TODO list to check, for each 2.4.x releases, which options have
> been added/modified and if the corresponding <compatibility> notes have been
> added in the doc. I've not taken the time yet to go thru all that.
>
> The only example I have in mind right now is r1523242 where the 'change=no'
> parameter has been added to 2.4.7.
> Doc has been updated in r1523325.
>
>
> Best regards,
> CJ
Regards,
Yann.
Re: svn commit: r1584582 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Posted by Marion & Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 04/04/2014 13:59, Yann Ylavic a écrit :
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> FYI not necessary to propose docs-only changes in STATUS, they are CTR.
> Oh, I see, thanks for the information.
> Should I (or one) backport it if no one else screams for a while then?
>
Just in case, removal of compatibility notes against 2.3.x has been
discussed a few months ago.
See http://marc.info/?t=138619128300001&r=1&w=2
No real concensus about it.
I'm still +1 for removing these references.
I'm not sure that the compatibility notes are really consistent in the
current tree. I am quite sure that some configuration options have been
added or enhanced without stating in which version it happened.
I have in my TODO list to check, for each 2.4.x releases, which options
have been added/modified and if the corresponding <compatibility> notes
have been added in the doc. I've not taken the time yet to go thru all that.
The only example I have in mind right now is r1523242 where the
'change=no' parameter has been added to 2.4.7.
Doc has been updated in r1523325.
Best regards,
CJ
Re: svn commit: r1584582 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> FYI not necessary to propose docs-only changes in STATUS, they are CTR.
>
> Oh, I see, thanks for the information.
> Should I (or one) backport it if no one else screams for a while then?
It seems that people do not really let these kinds of doc changes
linger in trunk. They usually get ported back almost immediately.
Re: svn commit: r1584582 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI not necessary to propose docs-only changes in STATUS, they are CTR.
Oh, I see, thanks for the information.
Should I (or one) backport it if no one else screams for a while then?