From modproxy-dev-return-736-apmail-modproxy-dev-archive=apache.org@apache.org Thu Aug 30 21:55:53 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-modproxy-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 4054 invoked by uid 500); 30 Aug 2001 21:55:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact modproxy-dev-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: modproxy-dev@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list modproxy-dev@apache.org Received: (qmail 4038 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2001 21:55:52 -0000 Errors-To: Message-ID: <189701c1319e$1e980e80$94c0b0d0@roweclan.net> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." To: References: <3B8E9B4E.3EECACE6@netmask.it> Subject: Re: 2.0.26?] Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:52:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Have any of you had a chance to play with the change from using syntax to using syntax? Any comments from the first few days of it's existence? Anyone playing with benchmarking 2.0.24 vs. cvs head on req/sec? Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eli Marmor" To: Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 3:00 PM Subject: [Fwd: 2.0.26?] > Please look at the forwarded message from new-httpd. > > Looks as a good time to roll a tar with Apache/proxy/APR, doesn't it? > > It's too early to know if this tag will become a beta, but it will be > surely more stable than the current beta (2.0.16 or 2.0.18, I don't > remember...). > > -- > Eli Marmor > marmor@netmask.it > CTO, Founder > Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd. > __________________________________________________________ > Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St. > Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004 > Mobile: +972-50-23-7338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel