From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 01 May 2002 00:09
Well then why are the patches in the tree??? I'm not sure I like the
idea of
tagging and then tagging just some files. Seems like if we haven't got a
stable HEAD we shouldn't be tagging. We got into this whole
It looks like you picked up practically all the changes. Why not just
retag 2.0.37?
I'm +1 for this...
You mean, tag HEAD as 2.0.37?
I didn't want to do that since there were changes I didn't want in there.
Practically all the changes is just about right ;)
Well then why are the
From: David Reid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 30 April 2002 10:31
It looks like you picked up practically all the changes. Why not just
retag 2.0.37?
I'm +1 for this...
You mean, tag HEAD as 2.0.37?
I didn't want to do that since there were changes I didn't want in there.
It looks like you picked up practically all the changes. Why not just
retag 2.0.37?
I'm +1 for this...
You mean, tag HEAD as 2.0.37?
I didn't want to do that since there were changes I didn't want in there.
Practically all the changes is just about right ;)
Well then why are
Well then why are the patches in the tree??? I'm not sure I like the
idea of
tagging and then tagging just some files. Seems like if we haven't got a
stable HEAD we shouldn't be tagging. We got into this whole business of
tagging often as a way of avoiding having this sort of thing. Ifw e
Well then why are the patches in the tree??? I'm not sure I like the
idea of
tagging and then tagging just some files. Seems like if we haven't got a
stable HEAD we shouldn't be tagging. We got into this whole business of
tagging often as a way of avoiding having this sort of thing.
Hi,
I am bumping tags today. There have been a number of commits since
the tag that should make it to release IMO. Actually, most of them
should go in. Files marked with a [T] will have their tag bumped.
Files marked with [-] won't. I have included the logs of the changes
for your
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
Sent: 29 April 2002 13:23
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am bumping tags today. There have been a number of commits since
the tag that should make it to release IMO.
I hope to finish testing
* Jeff Trawick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am bumping tags today. There have been a number of commits since
the tag that should make it to release IMO.
I hope to finish testing and commit a change to apxs.in (patch posted
Friday) to finish up
Thom May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jeff Trawick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am bumping tags today. There have been a number of commits since
the tag that should make it to release IMO.
I hope to finish testing and commit a change
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
Sent: 29 April 2002 13:23
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am bumping tags today. There have been a number of commits since
the tag that should make
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I am bumping tags today. There have been a number of commits since
the tag that should make it to release IMO. Actually, most of them
should go in.
[...]
It would be nice if we could bump daedalus to the new tag and give
this another 1-2 days
* Jeff Trawick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
Thom May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jeff Trawick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
I hope to finish testing and commit a change to apxs.in (patch posted
Friday) to finish up a set of fixes to allow apxs to work from a
binary build. It would be
13 matches
Mail list logo
