Here's what I'd like to propose:
o) We do another triple release: 1.3.40, 2.0.62 and 2.2.7
o) I tag and roll all 3 this Saturday (Dec 29th)
o) We anticipate releasing/announcing all on Jan 2, 2008
It would be a great New Year's gift to the community :)
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Here's what I'd like to propose:
o) We do another triple release: 1.3.40, 2.0.62 and 2.2.7
o) I tag and roll all 3 this Saturday (Dec 29th)
o) We anticipate releasing/announcing all on Jan 2, 2008
It would be a great New Year's gift to the community :)
+1!
Hi Jim,
> Here's what I'd like to propose:
>o) We do another triple release: 1.3.40, 2.0.62 and 2.2.7
>o) I tag and roll all 3 this Saturday (Dec 29th)
>o) We anticipate releasing/announcing all on Jan 2, 2008
> It would be a great New Year's gift to the community :)
great! Hehe, new
On 12/27/2007 06:39 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>> Here's what I'd like to propose:
>
>>o) We do another triple release: 1.3.40, 2.0.62 and 2.2.7
>>o) I tag and roll all 3 this Saturday (Dec 29th)
>>o) We anticipate releasing/announcing all on Jan 2, 2008
>
>> It would be a g
On 12/27/2007 03:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Here's what I'd like to propose:
>
> o) We do another triple release: 1.3.40, 2.0.62 and 2.2.7
> o) I tag and roll all 3 this Saturday (Dec 29th)
> o) We anticipate releasing/announcing all on Jan 2, 2008
>
> It would be a great New Year's
On 12/27/2007 11:01 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> Hi Ruediger,
>>
>>> Hm. I see no backport proposal for this in the STATUS file for 2.0.x.
>>> For formal reasons please add one. I would be +1 as well.
>> sorry, but unfortunately that's not possible since 2.2.x and lat
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi Ruediger,
Hm. I see no backport proposal for this in the STATUS file for 2.0.x.
For formal reasons please add one. I would be +1 as well.
sorry, but unfortunately that's not possible since 2.2.x and later do not have
this file any longer - so there's no real backport p
On 12/27/2007 10:45 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi Ruediger,
>
>> Hm. I see no backport proposal for this in the STATUS file for 2.0.x.
>> For formal reasons please add one. I would be +1 as well.
> sorry, but unfortunately that's not possible since 2.2.x and later do not
> have this file any lo
Hi Ruediger,
> Hm. I see no backport proposal for this in the STATUS file for 2.0.x.
> For formal reasons please add one. I would be +1 as well.
sorry, but unfortunately that's not possible since 2.2.x and later do not have
this file any longer - so there's no real backport proposal possible
Speaking of 3+1's
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
If anyone objects to
@ -183,7 +183,7 @@
apr_file_t *infile;
apr_dbm_t *outdbm;
-apr_initialize();
+apr_app_initialize(&argc, &argv, NULL);
atexit(apr_terminate);
verbose = 0;
I'm happy to revert the whole thing. Sorr
Hi,
> Speaking of 3+1's
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> If anyone objects to
>>
>> @ -183,7 +183,7 @@
>> apr_file_t *infile;
>> apr_dbm_t *outdbm;
>>
>> -apr_initialize();
>> +apr_app_initialize(&argc, &argv, NULL);
>> atexit(apr_terminate);
>>
>> verbose = 0;
>>
>
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 12/21/2007 08:01 PM, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
However, I found a slight bug that might be my configuration or
something worse: httpd won't serve http when I have mod_ftp with
accompanying config enabled. It reads the requ
Hi,
> As we have now three +1's (Guenther, you and me) we should not waste
> further
> time with formal discussions (which I started :-)). So Guenther please go
> ahead with committing to the 2.0.x branch.
thanks; done:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=607132&view=rev
Guen.
Nick Kew wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:05:35 +0800
Michael Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyway, I'll report back on my experiments...
I look forward to it:-)
I have done some more investigation and have written up a proposal for
my intended approach to this VFS requirement.
14 matches
Mail list logo
