Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 17:37 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Not unless -1's appear.
OK, thanks. I was asking because there were a few commits to trunk that
would be worth backporting in case you were re-spinning. Unless people
object, I will do that soon, so that I don't forget before 1.3.1.
In particular, I'm referring here to:
- r661178, 662326: thread safe apr_getservbyname()
- r661146, 662114, 662300: apr_shm: fix failure in test_named_remove
- r662299: silence GCC strict aliasing warning for APR rings
Please feel free! Such things are easily forgotten later on.
Maybe even something along these lines, provided we all agree how it
should be done now that API is frozen:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg20247.html
That patch is fine. And yes - it's worth debating how to communicate
the notice information from the engines (first question; how do these
correspond to other SQL clients?)
So I plan to vote shortly (almost done with win32 packages and my own
votes), and extend the vote another 12 hours to give everyone a chance
to cast their actual vote.
I would be very interested in seeing a vote from Joe, as he cast one of
the -1 votes during the release planning process. I did build
1.3.0 APR/APU RPMs (locally) on Fedora, so I know that part should be
mostly OK, but Joe is Fedora/RHEL Apache maintainer and his input would
be invaluable on this.
Agreed, I'd appreciate his vote. But not for the -1 he cast earlier, we
resolved his objections to his satisfaction long before the tag.
Bill
