Am 07.10.2010 01:36, schrieb Mike Meyer:
For the record - I'm against the change. RFC 2823 says the Reply-To
header is an originator field, and the list is *not* the originator of
the message.
the list *is* the originator since it sends the mail to me, and not you
personally, so this is probably
Am 06.10.2010 18:20, schrieb Joe Orton:
1) The tip of development for the apr-util tree is what is currently
branches/1.5.x. Yes, most of that code also exists in the apr tree.
apr-util releases and branches do not come from the apr tree, they come
from the apr-util tree.
but here's the whole in
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 01:12:28 +0200
Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Am 06.10.2010 21:40, schrieb Sander Temme:
> > Please make Reply-To default to the list. It's a discussion list,
> > with discussions taking place on-list. So responses should go to the
> > list.
> ok, since we are 3 now who would like t
On 07 Oct 2010, at 1:13 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:26 -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
[ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
[ ] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance
wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier
Here is a stu
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:26 -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> [ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
> jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
>
> [ ] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance
> wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier
Here is a stupid idea: why don't we have both? We ca
Am 06.10.2010 21:40, schrieb Sander Temme:
Please make Reply-To default to the list. It's a discussion list,
with discussions taking place on-list. So responses should go to the
list.
ok, since we are 3 now who would like to have it changed, and the rest
seems not to care about, how can we pro
Am 06.10.2010 21:26, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
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.
Counting up the opinions posted on the list...
[ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
jorton, rjung, minfri
On Oct 5, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> 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 hi
On Oct 6, 2010, at 12:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> [ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
> jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
>
> [+1] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance
> wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier, sctemme
S.
--
san...@temme.net http://www.te
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.
Counting up the opinions posted on the list...
[ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
[ ] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', st
On 06 Oct 2010, at 6:20 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
I don't really need the status quo "explained" to me in a README file.
I proposed to fix it, because it is (to me, obviously) broken.
1) The tip of development for the apr-util tree is what is currently
branches/1.5.x. Yes, most of that code also ex
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 01:17:19PM -0500, William Rowe 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.
>
> Let us know if Nick's suggested change satisfies, I've drafted a trunk
> which exp
+1
On 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.
>
> Regards, Joe
>
On 2010-10-05 at 16:58, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> 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
On 2010-10-05 at 11:24, Nick Kew wrote:
> 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 confu
15 matches
Mail list logo