Schultz, Gary - COMM wrote:
I know there are great people out there building great Win32 Apache 2.2.x binaries, but the problem is that some IT managers, like mine, want a stable Win32 Apache from the Apache Software Foundation. So we will continue with 2.0.55 until the ASF releases a stable Win32 binary. I would guess that others are in the same situation. This isn't pissing and moaning, this is life in our IT world. I'm content to wait, Apache 2.0.55 does everything our agency needs to do.
Glad to hear that it meets your needs; although you really might want to look at the newly released 2.0.58. I hope you haven't tripped over any 2.0.55 bugs, of course, but 2.0.58 slew a good handful of them. I would encourage anyone with limited time, who participates on this forum, to review the feedback and comments from our first 2.2.2 adopters - and watch what new wrinkles exist. Until you are personally satisfied. Of course most of the world isn't on this list, so they will either be extra cautious (I'm getting a big chuckle watching the number of 1.3 users migrating straight across to 2.2, having "escaped the .0 curse") or possible reckless (landing them here, out of the blue, screaming their production box is down and wanting a response in 30 minutes or less from users@ participants.) In fact, that's why companies -pay- for Apache, e.g. they want to be assured a given project/release is supported, and the supported release is stable, and that they have someone to call and respond to them, promptly.To wrap up this thread, after examining really major regressions, I wouldn't support 2.2.0 Windows binaries. Given the nature of the bugs, and the fact
that binary users couldn't just patch-and-move on, the release was premature -in my opinion-. That doesn't mean that other's wouldn't - it means that I was already aware of the flaws and that the majority of users moving to 2.2.0 from 2.0.5x would experience much more pain than gain, and that I had no plans to triage bugzilla with all such duplicated reports. More to the point, anyone else could provide binaries if they so wished (within the project - Apache doesn't accept external binary contributions). Nobody in the project raised their hand, probably for similar reasons. In other words, it's not my show, but it's up to whomever steps forward to help with binaries. Nothing's stopping someone else from doing this - and in fact many external folks did just this. So the next release was 2.2.2 (2.2.1? That version was scuttled.) And as I'd promised in December, binaries are up on the website for 2.2.2 (and 2.0.58, and 1.3.35, which may even be the final binary releases of those legacy branches, by me. We'll see.) Binaries may not hit the download page instantly, it's up to someone to put them there. Windows users have been lucky these past few years, I beat almost every other platform's binaries to first-post. Many are months/years old if you look through that tree. The long wait to 2.2.2 bothered the developers as much as it's bothered you all. But the httpd crew took their time to add the spit and polish 2.2 really needed, and I'm guessing anyone who adopts it is going to be very pleased with 2.2.2. Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|