Planning on pushing this out to coincide w/ ACUS09... Let's assume
head of apr 1.4...
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Planning on pushing this out to coincide w/ ACUS09... Let's assume
> head of apr 1.4...
-1 veto; that is not released code, and I'm not fond of the idea of a fork
of apr managed at httpd.
But if you meant, you will be moving forwards in apr to have that group accept
an apr
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Planning on pushing this out to coincide w/ ACUS09... Let's assume
> head of apr 1.4...
You've made 'reservations' a number times in the past several years in STATUS,
and
on list, that weren't realized for >1+ month afterwards.
Any time you would like to tag an alpha, plea
On Oct 15, 2009, at 7:56 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Planning on pushing this out to coincide w/ ACUS09... Let's assume
head of apr 1.4...
You've made 'reservations' a number times in the past several years
in STATUS, and
on list, that weren't realized for >1+ mon
On Oct 15, 2009, at 7:45 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Planning on pushing this out to coincide w/ ACUS09... Let's assume
head of apr 1.4...
-1 veto; that is not released code, and I'm not fond of the idea of
a fork
of apr managed at httpd.
Who said anything abou
On 15.10.2009 21:54, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Planning on pushing this out to coincide w/ ACUS09... Let's assume
> head of apr 1.4...
+1
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Yes, I know all that. But the reason I do this is to see if there
> is any sort of support behind this... I've I make this proposal and
> don't see any +1s, then it leaves me to believe that most people
> aren't so interested in doing so, which makes me wonder why.
So spe
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> So speaking for myself, I am interested.
As am I.
> In fact, if everything builds at the moment against 1.3.x apr (irrespective
> of whether or not all features are enabled) I'm likely to just tag on Sunday
> or Monday, and give testers something to start chewing on
Subj says it all... As a quick check to see where we are, so we
can determine where we need to go, is now a good time to release
a 2.3.3 alpha?
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>
> Subj says it all... As a quick check to see where we are, so we
> can determine where we need to go, is now a good time to release
> a 2.3.3 alpha?
I think that would be a terrific idea :) Presuming that you are happy
to revert the open vetoes of you
10 matches
Mail list logo