Be awake, the issue is discussed on this list many times, when I recall I started it in June. On request of the list a bug is opened and there, dev's are discussing solutions on the ticket.
I noted before here that when a issue reported on the list and a request by eg you is made to report it as a bug the big chance is that it is of the table. Op 25 jan. 2012 om 20:28 heeft Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> het volgende geschreven: > Bill, you should know by now that development is done on dev@... > private@ is "on-list" as well, by your definition. > > If anyone else would have done it, you would have, justifiable, > jumped all on them. > > The issue is that 2.4.x is being held up by an issue, which > is being "discussed" not on dev@, and since it's not a security > issue, that's not the way we work. > > Yes, I am eager to get 2.4.x out; but just as I'm unwilling > to tolerate potential stone-walling for simple stone-walling > sake, nor should we tolerate development which *addresses* > the issue which is holding things up, NOT being developed > on list. > > On Jan 25, 2012, at 3:08 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >> On 1/25/2012 1:07 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 23, 2012, at 3:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >>>> Again, this is being discussed on >>>> its bug ticket. >>> >>> Whatever happened to "if it didn't happen on-list, it didn't >>> happen"? Are you pedantic on issues only if they don't happen >>> to apply to you? >> >> All bug ticket email activity is emailed to b...@httpd.apache.org. >> >> Once upon a time, it was all on one list. We separated this from >> dev@ into bugs@ about a decade ago out of convenience for people >> to help sort dialog vs. tickets. But bugs@ comments are just as >> valid as dev@ comments; they are both on-list. Right? >> >> And there's no decision on that ticket AFAIK; only input data. >> >
