Re: httpd-2.0's proxy CHANGES file

2002-03-15 Thread Chuck Murcko 

+1.

On Thursday, March 14, 2002, at 11:46 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote:

> +1
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jim Jagielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 11:38 AM
> Subject: httpd-2.0's proxy CHANGES file
>
>
>> Now that mod_proxy is back in httpd-2.0, should we depreciate proxy's
>> CHANGES file? If so, I'll make a note to that effect in it.

Re: httpd-2.0's proxy CHANGES file

2002-03-14 Thread Bill Stoddard 

+1
- Original Message - 
From: "Jim Jagielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 11:38 AM
Subject: httpd-2.0's proxy CHANGES file


> Now that mod_proxy is back in httpd-2.0, should we depreciate proxy's
> CHANGES file? If so, I'll make a note to that effect in it.
> -- 
> ===
>Jim Jagielski   [|]   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
>   "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
>  will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
>

httpd-2.0's proxy CHANGES file

2002-03-14 Thread Jim Jagielski 

Now that mod_proxy is back in httpd-2.0, should we depreciate proxy's
CHANGES file? If so, I'll make a note to that effect in it.
-- 
===
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
  "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
 will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson