Timeline for Apache tags - a bit of a mess?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 5, 2011 at 17:46 | vote | accept | Shane Madden | ||
| Sep 27, 2011 at 6:31 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/ServerFault/status/118573339726983168 | ||
| Sep 26, 2011 at 17:23 | answer | added | user9517 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 26, 2011 at 14:21 | comment | added | Chris S |
Apache 2.0 was released in 2002; 2.2 in 2005; and 2.4 is expected "in the near future". Even given the slow release schedule, the functionality changes between version is mostly minimal, most people will not know what version they're running, most people will be running 2.2.x anyway because that's what Linux distros, *AMPP stacks, et al ship with. I'm agreeing with Mark, until there's a notable difference just go with apache1 and apache2.
|
|
| Sep 26, 2011 at 6:09 | comment | added | Mark Henderson Mod | @JeffAtwood - I'm not a huge apache person, so I honestly don't know about their version numbering schemes. My concern is that people won't know if they're on 2.0 2.2 or 2.4 and just choose one at random | |
| Sep 26, 2011 at 2:59 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood |
@mark don't apache version numbers increment very, very slowly and with major changes between? That's a good sign for this kind of tagging. And remember that apache* wildcards work almost everywhere you would expect them to...
|
|
| Sep 26, 2011 at 1:00 | comment | added | Mark Henderson Mod |
I once had a look at apache and almost all of them were certainly apache 2.2 - I would like to ban apache as a tag, like we've banned vmware and force users into apache1 and apache2 generically.
|
|
| Sep 26, 2011 at 0:44 | history | asked | Shane Madden | CC BY-SA 3.0 |