Damn.
+1 from me ;)
nd
On Thursday 31 January 2013 14:57:09 Daniel Gruno wrote:
> With another 72 hours passed and no new votes cast, I am satisfied that
> the motion has been carried, so to speak. I'll get started preparing the
> new site and contacting old authors/maintainers.
>
> With regards
With another 72 hours passed and no new votes cast, I am satisfied that
the motion has been carried, so to speak. I'll get started preparing the
new site and contacting old authors/maintainers.
With regards,
Daniel.
Previous vote email follows, for reference:
Apologies for my email client apparently adding an in-reply-to which was
not intended. This seems to have caused some difficulties for some
people reading this vote as a part of the discussion thread, which it
was not.
As a result, some people may not have had seen the opportunity to vote,
and the
Oh, a vote deep in the middle of a discussion thread :-(
nd
On Monday 28 January 2013 14:25:09 Daniel Gruno wrote:
> With the clock passing 13:20 GMT, the voting has ended, and been
> tallied. There was some concern about the DNS solution in the proposal,
> which has been adjusted to a subdirecto
With the clock passing 13:20 GMT, the voting has ended, and been
tallied. There was some concern about the DNS solution in the proposal,
which has been adjusted to a subdirectory instead (and all URLs on the
old site has been adjusted to use relative hrefs), and with no
objections to that, the vote
+1
Roy
> [ ] +1: I support this proposal
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
+1
On 25.01.2013 14:21, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>
> Vote
>
>
> [XX] +1: I support this proposal
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
+1
Thanks!
Rainer
On Friday 25 January 2013, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> [ ] +1: I support this proposal
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
+1
On Jan 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> [ ] +1: I support this proposal
+1
...and whatever you want to do with the old site is fine by me.
What level of traffic are we seeing on it? Shouldn't we just make a clean
break and respond to any URL into the old database with a 410 Go
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Gruno [mailto:rum...@cord.dk]
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013 8:54 AM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
>
> On 01/25/2013 11:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
> >
> > On 25 Jan 2
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Gruno [mailto:rum...@cord.dk]
> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 11:52 PM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
>
> So, this is when we get to vote on things!
> I am satisfied that the new sit
On 25 Jan 2013, at 22:13, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Is this practical, or will all the links break?
Fair question. I guess the answer is try-it-and-see.
Is the site populated with dynamically-generated links
relative to its own root / ? Static links should be trivial
to run through a one-off sea
On 01/25/2013 11:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:21, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>
>> [ ] +1: I support this proposal
>> [ ] 0: I don't care
>> [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
>
> -1 as stated. +1 in principle.
>
> IMHO it needs a tiny change. Instead of creatin
On 25 Jan 2013, at 22:01, Nick Kew wrote:
> -1 as stated. +1 in principle.
>
> IMHO it needs a tiny change. Instead of creating a messy new
> DNS entry for "modules-archive", it should live under a single
> hostname: maybe modules.apache.org/archive/
Is this practical, or will all the links b
On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:21, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> [ ] +1: I support this proposal
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
-1 as stated. +1 in principle.
IMHO it needs a tiny change. Instead of creating a messy new
DNS entry for "modules-archive", it should
On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:21, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> [ ] +1: I support this proposal
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because..
+1.
Regards,
Graham
--
+1
On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> [ ] +1: I support this proposal
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
--
Rich Bowen
rbo...@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen
rbo...@apache.org
On 1/25/2013 5:21 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
Vote
[X] +1: I support this proposal
[ ] 0: I don't care
[ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
>
>
>
> Vote
>
>
> [ ] +1: I support this proposal
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
>
> This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours, thus ending, at
> earliest, on Monday, January 28th, 13:20 GMT.
> Standard majority consensus applies,
Am 25.01.2013 14:21, schrieb Daniel Gruno:
Vote
[ ] +1: I support this proposal
[ ] 0: I don't care
[ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
+1
Gün.
On 01/25/2013 04:00 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>>
>> Proposal
>>
>> 1) Move the current modules.apache.org to modules-archive.apache.org
>
> And made read-only, right?
>
Yes, it will be a read only archive - no sense in foolin
On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>
> Proposal
>
> 1) Move the current modules.apache.org to modules-archive.apache.org
And made read-only, right?
> 2) Create a link on both modules.apache.org and
> modules-archive.apache.org linking to each other.
> 3) Replace
Daniel Gruno wrote:
> So, this is when we get to vote on things!
> I am satisfied that the new site is working as intended, and that new
> requests for features can be integrated and reviewed, as the site is
> publicly available in svn (in the infrastructure repository).
>
> Now, the vote deals
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>
> Proposal
>
> 1) Move the current modules.apache.org to modules-archive.apache.org
> 2) Create a link on both modules.apache.org and
> modules-archive.apache.org linking to each other.
> 3) Replace modules.apache.org with t
On 01/25/2013 02:21 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>
> Vote
>
>
> [ X ] +1: I support this proposal
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
>
> This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours, thus ending, at
> earliest, on Monday, January 28th, 13:20 GMT.
So, this is when we get to vote on things!
I am satisfied that the new site is working as intended, and that new
requests for features can be integrated and reviewed, as the site is
publicly available in svn (in the infrastructure repository).
Now, the vote deals with a lot of things, so I'd like
27 matches
Mail list logo
