Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha

Hi dev@, FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. As in the previous 2.${odd} release cycles, this is not a stable release, do not guarantee a stable ABI, and would not be recommended for production usage:

Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha

On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Paul Querna wrote: FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. +1, let's get that code out there. As part of this process, I would like us (the group) to identify *early* which third party module

Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha

Sander Temme wrote: On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Paul Querna wrote: FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. +1, let's get that code out there. As part of this process, I would like us (the group) to identify *early* which

Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha

On 11/28/2008 06:58 PM, Sander Temme wrote: > > On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Paul Querna wrote: > >> FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in >> about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. > > +1, let's get that code out there. > > As part of this process, I would like

Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha

mod_perl comes to mind too. To a lesser extend mod_security and mod_macro. ~Jorge On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 11/28/2008 06:58 PM, Sander Temme wrote: >> >> On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Paul Querna wrote: >> >>> FYI, I intend to roll 2.3

Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha

Jorge Schrauwen wrote: > mod_perl comes to mind too. yeah really *cough* -- Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) c:703.336.9354 Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. - http://p6m7g8.net 1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 7

Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha

On Nov 28, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Paul Querna wrote: Would be nice if someone had time to polish mod_proxy_fcgi Come January, I have free cycles... Dec, esp before Christmas will be tight. But this is something that I really want to spend some time on.

Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha

On Nov 28, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Paul Querna wrote: Hi dev@, FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. As in the previous 2.${odd} release cycles, this is not a stable release, do not guarantee a stable ABI, and would not be

Fw: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha

Not sure what happened to this yesterday ... reposting. Begin forwarded message: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:32:50 + From: Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha Paul Querna wrote: > Hi dev@, > > FYI, I intend to roll 2

Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha

Paul Querna wrote: Hi dev@, FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. How about starting the process not with a roll, but with a proposed software configuration and feature set? Just OTTOMH and from a quick look at trunk, I s

Re: Fw: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha

Nick Kew wrote: > Paul Querna wrote: >> Hi dev@, >> >> FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in >> about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. > > How about starting the process not with a roll, but with a proposed > software configuration and feature set? IMHO, that's the

Re: Fw: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Nick Kew wrote: Paul Querna wrote: Hi dev@, FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. How about starting the process not with a roll, but with a proposed software configuration and feature set? IMH

Re: Fw: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: IMHO, that's the difference between having a dialog and having something in hand to comment on. With the .0-alpha tarball, people could make a specific comment, such as [T +10 days from now]... Am I right in understanding that it remains possible to make changes to

Re: Fw: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha

Graham Leggett wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: IMHO, that's the difference between having a dialog and having something in hand to comment on. With the .0-alpha tarball, people could make a specific comment, such as [T +10 days from now]... Am I right in understanding that it remains poss