On 08.04.2012 15:28, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Perhaps it is just my nature to disagree with everybody when there is
some contentious discussion. Or just possibly it is my nature to try
to pull apart what was discussed (or yelled), throw away the most
extreme aspects, and see if there is anything to
On 08.04.2012 15:48, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Some of the behavior here is embarrassing. Yelling about not
following procedures that nobody else even follows as stated,
threatening, whining, crudity or at least making fun of objections to
crudity, extreme defensiveness, etc. do not reflect well on
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Some of the behavior here is embarrassing. Yelling about not
following procedures that nobody else even follows as stated,
threatening, whining, crudity or at least making fun of objections to
crudity, extreme defensiveness, etc. do not reflect well on us or our
ability
Rainer Jung wrote:
On 08.04.2012 15:28, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Perhaps it is just my nature to disagree with everybody when there is
some contentious discussion. Or just possibly it is my nature to try
to pull apart what was discussed (or yelled), throw away the most
extreme aspects, and see
On Sunday 08 April 2012, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 4/4/2012 5:09 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
This type of comment embarrasses both the project and the ASF. If
you want to discuss an issue, please discuss the issue. As soon
as emails start getting abusive, EOT.
Graham Leggett,
The
On Monday 09 April 2012, Rainer Jung wrote:
Do you disagree with the procedure and/or my attempt to describe
the normal way this is handled?
No, I agree and I think it is more useful to include the CHANGES
entry in the backport commit than to split it in a second commit.
At least that's
On Sunday 08 April 2012, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Some of the behavior here is embarrassing. Yelling about not
following procedures that nobody else even follows as stated,
threatening, whining, crudity or at least making fun of objections
to crudity, extreme defensiveness, etc. do not reflect
To the list; I'm sorry about the tone of this discussion. I'm sorry
about the hostility embedded in my response. For the list participants,
Branko and Jeff are right, it doesn't need to be here. I'd respond to
one point Stefan raises and then have nothing more productive to add
to this dialog.
On Monday 02 April 2012, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 01 Apr 2012, at 11:06 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Sorry for being late, but
-1
Works fine if linked dynamically with DSOs.
But for the static build, httpd segfaults in mod_ssl (backtrace
at the bottom of the mail). Since 1.4.1
On 4/9/2012 11:04 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Monday 09 April 2012, Rainer Jung wrote:
Do you disagree with the procedure and/or my attempt to describe
the normal way this is handled?
No, I agree and I think it is more useful to include the CHANGES
entry in the backport commit than to
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:56 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
To the list; I'm sorry about the tone of this discussion. I'm sorry
about the hostility embedded in my response. For the list participants,
Branko and Jeff are right, it doesn't need to be here. I'd respond to
one
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 4/9/2012 11:04 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Monday 09 April 2012, Rainer Jung wrote:
Do you disagree with the procedure and/or my attempt to describe
the normal way this is handled?
No, I agree and I think it
12 matches
Mail list logo
