On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 19:36, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 12:07 PM 3/17/2004, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote: > >On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 17:53 -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote: > >> > > >> > Care to +1 for backport & I'll make it so today? > >> > >> well, I'm not sure that my involvement in apr warrants a vote, but I'm +1 > >> in > >> any case :) > > > >Same argument from me here, this bug has forced me to use libmm in a > >project already using APR, and I would _very_ much rather use 100% > >APR ;-) > > > 1.20.2.3 +1 -1 apr-util/misc/apr_rmm.c > 1.3.2.2 +10 -2 apr-util/test/testrmm.c > > Sander and company - if the final tags of apr 0.9.5 / httpd 2.0.49 can pick > this > up - it would be lovely. Well validated. > > On that subject, any chance of calling 0.9.5 toasted and then using the > apr/-util > release tag as the httpd 2.0.49 release point?
I uploaded the httpd 2.0.49 rc3 tarballs over an hour ago... Sander
