Geoffrey Young wrote:
So, uhh, ping? Any comments other than i'm iffy and is there any
reason not to add it?
+1 (concept; implementation not verified)
here too. is this the most recent patch:
http://issues.eu.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12746
?
if so, I'll try and review the
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:37:43 -0500, Garrett Rooney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Friday, September 17, 2004 1:07 PM -0400 Garrett Rooney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could someone please take a look at bug
So, uhh, ping? Any comments other than i'm iffy and is there any
reason not to add it?
+1 (concept; implementation not verified)
here too. is this the most recent patch:
http://issues.eu.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12746
?
if so, I'll try and review the implementation early
Geoffrey Young wrote:
So, uhh, ping? Any comments other than i'm iffy and is there any
reason not to add it?
+1 (concept; implementation not verified)
here too. is this the most recent patch:
http://issues.eu.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12746
?
if so, I'll try and review the
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Friday, September 17, 2004 1:07 PM -0400 Garrett Rooney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could someone please take a look at bug 31228 in bugzilla?
It's just adding a new response code (226) which is defined in rfc3229.
I'm
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Friday, September 17, 2004 1:07 PM -0400 Garrett Rooney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could someone please take a look at bug 31228 in bugzilla?
It's just adding a new response code (226) which is defined in rfc3229.
I'm working
--On Friday, September 17, 2004 1:07 PM -0400 Garrett Rooney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could someone please take a look at bug 31228 in bugzilla?
It's just adding a new response code (226) which is defined in rfc3229.
I'm working on a module that implements a type of rfc3229 delta encoding
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Friday, September 17, 2004 1:07 PM -0400 Garrett Rooney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could someone please take a look at bug 31228 in bugzilla?
It's just adding a new response code (226) which is defined in rfc3229.
I'm working on a module that implements a type