On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> 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 questio
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> 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 ?
>... [query about svn lists]
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 17:29, Greg Stein wrote:
> We do not munge Reply-To on dev@ or priv...@. I'm not subscribed to
> users@, so I dunno.
>
> Commit messages (which originate from the commit script) have a
> Reply-To to redirect responses to the dev@ list, to keep d
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:32, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
>> Oh boo hoo, you can't reply to the list with just Reply. Get over it.
>> Hit "reply to all" and you'll be fine.
>
> I just love it when people get all rude for no reason at all.
That's n
We do not munge Reply-To on dev@ or priv...@. I'm not subscribed to
users@, so I dunno.
Commit messages (which originate from the commit script) have a
Reply-To to redirect responses to the dev@ list, to keep discussion
off the commits@ list.
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 12:44, William A. Rowe Jr. wro
On 10/7/2010 5:29 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> We will still need to make releases on apr-util in the v1.x series, and we
> may need to
> bump v1.3 to v1.4, etc. For this, we need a properly functional trunk,
> otherwise those
> following the standard svn conventions face problems.
Yes, and no
Two major consumers of apr are the httpd and svn projects. Many/most
of our subscribers are their subscribers. We know how httpd list
processing is configured... how is the svn dev@ list configured?
2010/10/7 Graham Leggett :
> On 07 Oct 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>> These choices seem skewed to me. "apr is apr-util/trunk" is a
>> different concept than "rename 1.5.x to trunk." Conceptually, "apr is
>> apr-util trunk" whatever we decide.
>
> I disagree, in the past, we had two
The list already has a header with just the list address in it:
List-Post, as per RFC 2369. Adding another one is a waste.
Your mailer should have a reply facility that uses the List-Post
header. Put it in your UI, and start using it. Then you can quit
carrying whether or not the list uses (abuses
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 20:01, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> 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
On 2010-10-07 at 04:55, Greg Stein wrote:
> No, I think it is because people are tired
> of the Reply-To discussion crap and are simply hoping not to have to
> deal with it.
+1
Internet consensus is that there will be no consensus on this question.
Let's not waste time proving that all over aga
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 07 Oct 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>> These choices seem skewed to me. "apr is apr-util/trunk" is a
>> different concept than "rename 1.5.x to trunk." Conceptually, "apr is
>> apr-util trunk" whatever we decide.
>
> I disagr
On 07 Oct 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
These choices seem skewed to me. "apr is apr-util/trunk" is a
different concept than "rename 1.5.x to trunk." Conceptually, "apr is
apr-util trunk" whatever we decide.
I disagree, in the past, we had two projects, each with an independent
tr
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:26 PM, 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.
>
> Counting up the opinions posted on the list...
>
> [ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
> jo
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 19:12, 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 to ha
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 20:01, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> 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 i
16 matches
Mail list logo
