On 10/5/2010 5:46 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi all,
> with almost all other lists we have set the reply-to address to the list, so
> if you just
> hit reply then post goes to list as it should be - why the heck is that not
> true for the
> d...@apr list??
> sure, I only need to take care of it,
On 5 Oct 2010, at 23:46, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi all,
> with almost all other lists we have set the reply-to address to the list, so
> if you just hit reply then post goes to list as it should be - why the heck
> is that not true for the d...@apr list??
> sure, I only need to take care of it,
Hi all,
with almost all other lists we have set the reply-to address to the
list, so if you just hit reply then post goes to list as it should be -
why the heck is that not true for the d...@apr list??
sure, I only need to take care of it, and hit 'reply to list', but too
often I forget about -
Am 05.10.2010 22:58, schrieb Jeff Trawick:
does anybody strongly believe that we should get expat fixed in 0.9.x
(whether they have time or not)?
/me asking dumb question:
is it much more work than just copying over from 1.3 ?
Gün.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> (Both have critical fixes which are currently available only as patches.)
>
> I can T&R as long as the trees are ready by approx. Thursday (I'm on
> the road next week). It would be great to get expat taken care of but
> I can't volunteer any
On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
> the trunk for that tree now.
Let us know if Nick's suggested change satisfies, I've drafted a trunk
which explains things...
Bill
Hi all,
yesterday I ran into the following problem. I use the apr_file_lock()
function in conjunction with the APR_FOPEN_APPEND flag and under Linux
everything is fine.
Under Windows any attempt to write to the opened and locked file I get a
deadlock. This is due the fact that apr_file_write
2010/10/5 Nick Kew :
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:33:04 -0500
> "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
>
>> On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
>> > Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
>> > the trunk for that tree now.
>>
>> -.5, because for the confusion it saves the dozen
On 10/5/2010 10:24 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> But it does perhaps highlight a need to be clearer about where we are.
> Might another idea be to have an apr-util/trunk/ containing nothing
> but a README explaining the situation?
+1
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:33:04 -0500
"William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
> On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> > Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
> > the trunk for that tree now.
>
> -.5, because for the confusion it saves the dozen of us, many more dozens
> wi
On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> It is the trunk for that tree now.
Actually you aren't correct... the trunk of apr-util/ development is
repos/asf/apr/apr/trunk/.
On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
> the trunk for that tree now.
-.5, because for the confusion it saves the dozen of us, many more dozens
will be confused by checking out apr and apr-util trunks as they have in
the pas
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
> the trunk for that tree now.
+1
On 05 Oct 2010, at 9:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
the trunk for that tree now.
+1, makes sense - it clears up the confusion over where "apr-util-
trunk" has gone.
Regards,
Graham
--
On 05.10.2010 09:40, Joe Orton wrote:
Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
the trunk for that tree now.
+1 (no objection) from me, I continuously need to remember "there is no
trunk because of the merging with apr".
Regards,
Rainer
Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
the trunk for that tree now.
Regards, Joe
16 matches
Mail list logo
