"GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Many users are still using Apache 2.0.24-alpha (including myself),
>>> or even 2.0.18-beta (including IBM iSeries team porting Apache 2.0).
>
> Ok, ok, I could understand your all developpers point of vue,
> but let me say it appears just too elitist.
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
> "GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't agree with that Pier, we must try to keep compatibility
> > with previous release of Apache 2.0, since there IS STILL NO
> > official release.
> >
> > Many users are still using Apache 2.0.24-alpha (including myse
"Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 01:52:50AM +0100, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>> Since there is no official release of httpd-2.0, I am confident that nobody
>> will actually care unless they're testing something... And by "testing" good
>> practice says "get the
"GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I didn't agree with that Pier, we must try to keep compatibility
> with previous release of Apache 2.0, since there IS STILL NO
> official release.
>
> Many users are still using Apache 2.0.24-alpha (including myself),
> or even 2.0.18-beta (including
>This will need to change when my next patches in the webapp
>library go in,
>as Apache will be able to serve static files when possible...
>
>Also, since Apache 2.0 is not final yet, I would remove all
>MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER checks, and _require_ for the module to be
>built with
>the latest HEAD
