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 myself),
> > or even 2.0.18-beta (including IBM iSeries team porting Apache 2.0).
>
> 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 HEAD of CVS and try it out yourself if it doesn't
> work". Development happens on "head" and if someone forks off for a little
> while to do some porting to some weird operating systems, at the end those
> changes will have to be integrated with HEAD, so, there's no point in
> sticking with backward compatibility AT THIS POINT.
>
> I could stick with the "last official tarball" since that's an easy piece of
> thing to download. So, if the latest version is 2.0.18 alpha (don't even
> know since I use HEAD),
The is 2.0.25 (Thank STATUS!). 20010808 is a date...
> I could agree to have some ifdefs in the code to
> cope with the differences between "latest tarball" and "head".
>
> All this, of course, UNTIL an official final version comes out, that's when
> I'll start caring about backward compatibility.
>
> That's my idea, but I would love to hear the other contributors to the
> WebApp module to tell me what they think, Ryan, J.F., Colin, Thom...
I added the #ifdef to Ryan's patch. And I would keep them until Apache-2.0
releases a beta.
Apache-2.0 is still changing a lot. (HEAD may broke things like external modules
or be broken for some hours).
I am normaly testing using HEAD. (that is why I am known on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
;-))
We cannot tell a TC user to update his Apache-2.0 to the lastest version each
time there is a new version, he probably wants to test TC not httpd. But we
should warn him when he is not using the lastest httpd-2.0 version.
So I am -0 for an error message and +1 for a warning.
>
> > Let avoid questions in user-list asking about which version of
> > Apache 2.0 to be used, or why we couldn't compile the module
> > against a running (even if obsolete) Apache 2.0....
>
> Like, you've answered a lot of questions on tomcat-user about the WebApp
> module :) :) :) That's a task I'm handling, and I believe I've been pretty
> good at. There's no unanswered question on the WebApp module on the users
> list. (In comparison to...)
>
> > That's a part of the problem in mod_webapp with APR.
>
> Choosing APR has been my decision from the beginning. If you guys didn't
> want to do it, why not voting -1 when I dropped the code in CVS? Now it's
> there, I believe it's good. You might not like it, as I don't like what
> you're doing, but, hey, we're forced to coexist on the same mailing list.
>
> So, as I don't piss you off on what you're doing, please, you do the same.
> :) :) :) :) :)
>
> Thanks...
>
> Pier
