From: "Greg Ames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:06 PM
> Greg Ames wrote: > > > hmmmm...that's an interesting idea. I like it! I would bump the tag on > > that file, > > crap... I just looked at viewcvs. There's been two other changes to > that file since the tag, one of which probably hit multiple files. It's > starting too sound risky to pull in the patch. Then branch already (that one file), for goodness sakes, using APACHE_2_0_28 as the branch identifier, APACHE_2_0_28_A1 as the original file, and now APACHE_2_0_28_B1 as the new tag. How on earth do you suppose CHANGES or STATUS could ever be appropriately marked without a branch on those two files? > Why don't we go with commenting out the 401 error document, and include > the patch in the release notes? No nevermind here if either the fix, or the warning goes in.
