2.3.3-alpha

2009-10-15 Thread Jim Jagielski
Planning on pushing this out to coincide w/ ACUS09... Let's assume head of apr 1.4...

Re: 2.3.3-alpha

2009-10-15 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
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

Re: 2.3.3-alpha

2009-10-15 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
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

Re: 2.3.3-alpha

2009-10-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
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

Re: 2.3.3-alpha

2009-10-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
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

Re: 2.3.3-alpha

2009-10-16 Thread Rainer Jung
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

Re: 2.3.3-alpha

2009-10-16 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
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

Re: 2.3.3-alpha

2009-10-16 Thread Graham Leggett
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

Time for 2.3.3 alpha?

2009-09-10 Thread Jim Jagielski
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?

Re: Time for 2.3.3 alpha?

2009-09-11 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
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