On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> > too trivial for CHANGES... waste of time for people looking there for
> > interesting changes...
>
> It was contributed by someone external to apr, and having banged my head
> against the same shortcomings in docum
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> too trivial for CHANGES... waste of time for people looking there for
> interesting changes...
It was contributed by someone external to apr, and having banged my head
against the same shortcomings in documentation, such contributions are
very valuable and should be properl
On 08/12/2009 11:03 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> Is this vote over or should we wait for further votes?
>> Please find the current results below
>
> The vote is over. We will revert, and whenever anyone feels like
> rolling APR 2.0, they may simply svn rm apr/ldap
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 6:02 PM, wrote:
> Author: minfrin
> Date: Tue Jul 28 22:02:21 2009
> New Revision: 798718
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=798718&view=rev
> Log:
> Make sure that "make check" is used in the RPM spec file, so that
> the crypto, dbd and dbm tests pass.
>
> Modified
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:46 PM, wrote:
> Author: minfrin
> Date: Wed Sep 9 18:46:05 2009
> New Revision: 813071
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=813071&view=rev
> Log:
> Add comments describing the thread-safety properties of apr_pool_t.
> Submitted by: Neil Conway nrc cs.berkeley.edu
>
