10

So, we've got , which is the second most popular tag on the site.

It's a superset of the versions of it - , , ; and is essentially a superset of 2.0, 2.2, and soon to be 2.4; certainly, most of the questions are referring to version 2.2 and not 2.0.

Adding to that the company-vs-product naming; the internet community is perfectly content to call it Apache, while the Apache Software Foundation calls it "Apache HTTPD" or "Apache HTTP Server" these days - they don't want to give the impression that it's their only software, I guess!


I don't think something like etc. would be sane or reasonable, but we should probably have some discussion on how to handle these tags. Any guidance on the "right" way to structure these on mSO?

Maybe crunch the 2.x tags all into in the same way that, say, the service packs for Windows Server tags don't merit their own tag? Or make a synonym of the current version (so make it synonym to right now, then to 2.4 once it's out and gaining traction)? And what of ?

  • 5
    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. – Mark Henderson Sep 26 '11 at 1:00
  • 1
    @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... – Jeff Atwood Sep 26 '11 at 2:59
  • @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 – Mark Henderson Sep 26 '11 at 6:09
  • 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. – Chris S Sep 26 '11 at 14:21
5

It seems that the vast majority of the questions tagged are relevant to some variant of Apache 2. There are 34 questions that are but the body of which contains a reference to apache 1.3 or apache1.3, these would need to be checked and manually retagged if required as at least some are just referring back to some feature of Apache 1.3.

Once the above is done then

  • I've gone through those searches and manually retagged 16 questions that looked primarily 1.3 related to apache1. – Shane Madden Sep 28 '11 at 5:35
  • I have emailed the contact address below asking for the bulk to be done. – Iain Oct 3 '11 at 10:49
  • this is done; there is an apache2-ssl as well, should that be left alone? – Jeff Atwood Oct 5 '11 at 9:44
  • SSL is part of apache2, there is no need for a different tag. It should rather be tagged as "apache2, ssl" – pauska Oct 5 '11 at 11:20
  • 1
    @JefAtwood: We've manually dealt with [apache2-ssl] so it can be blocked now too. Thanks for the help. – Iain Oct 5 '11 at 18:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .