Re: 2.2.7 seems to come in sight: Digest of STATUS

Ruediger Pluem wrote: Now that the T&R of APR / APR-UTIL is in progress (Thanks Other Bill) httpd 2.2.7 seems to come in sight. There are about 10 backport proposals in the STATUS file that are only missing one vote. So come on it is voting and review time guys :-)). There is one backport propos

Re: 2.2.7 seems to come in sight: Digest of STATUS

On Nov 15, 2007, at 4:22 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Ruediger Pluem wrote: Now that the T&R of APR / APR-UTIL is in progress (Thanks Other Bill) httpd 2.2.7 seems to come in sight. There are about 10 backport proposals in the STATUS file that are only missing one vote. So come on it is vot

Re: x64 binary build instructions was Re: 2.2.7

On 9/28/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 9/28/07, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > So with Jorge's and help from a few others, 2.2.6 builds quite > nicely at > > the command line. To make the transition to

Re: x64 binary build instructions was Re: 2.2.7

> On 9/28/07, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > So with Jorge's and help from a few others, 2.2.6 builds quite nicely at > the command line. To make the transition to the GUI requires some other > steps, and I'm hoping these are simpler

Re: x64 binary build instructions was Re: 2.2.7

On 9/28/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So with Jorge's and help from a few others, 2.2.6 builds quite nicely at > the command line. To make the transition to the GUI requires some other > steps, and I'm hoping these are simpler with 2.2.7 if I have a whole > weekend to wor

Re: 2.2.7

On 28.09.2007, at 01:28, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Erik Abele wrote: Sure, we all have to pay our bills but you're overlooking a difference: Nick just replied to an inquiry offering his (and others services); he doesn't advertise any revenue-generating site after every release etc. et

Re: 2.2.7

On 27.09.2007, at 17:04, François wrote: 2007/9/27, Erik Abele < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this > whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort > he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries i

Re: x64 binary build instructions was Re: 2.2.7

Just for reference, Jorge's been instrumental in providing feedback that has made it easier (not trivial, yet) to build for x64 on Windows. There's actually a build log sitting off in http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/ if anyone is interested in how noisy the 64 bit builds still are on win32, we see

Re: 2.2.7

Erik Abele wrote: > > Sure, we all have to pay our bills but you're overlooking a difference: > Nick just replied to an inquiry offering his (and others services); he > doesn't advertise any revenue-generating site after every release etc. > etc... ;-0 Nick's comment didn't even mention he does t

Re: x64 binary build instructions was Re: 2.2.7

My method is documentated here: http://www.blackdot.be/?inc=apache/knowledge/tutorials/x64 It is on my wiki todo list but school is keeping me busy + the weekends are going to some stuff that is earning me money. My method has evolved slightly but not very much just minor tweaks to make things eas

x64 binary build instructions was Re: 2.2.7

On Sep 27, 2007 9:22 AM, Jorge Schrauwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I could provide x64 binaries if there is interest in them. I usually push > them out to my site within a week of the source release. > I'm not 100% sure my method of creating them is the same as the ASF's but I > can change my wa

Re: 2.2.7

On Sep 27, 2007, at 11:04 AM, François wrote: 2007/9/27, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Furthermore, Apache for Windows will only continue to exist if there is a steady flow of these volunteers. This (dev@) is the forum in which they operate. This, also, is not a threat, but a plain

Re: 2.2.7

On 09/27/2007 05:04 PM, François wrote: > 2007/9/27, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Um ... No, that's not at all what's being said. Quite apart from the >> history of the founding of that company ... but that's utterly irrelevant >> here. Companies aren't participants in Apache projects. I

Re: 2.2.7

> Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this > whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort > he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries in a > transparent and documented way *here* and we could even distribute > them from apach

RE: 2.2.7

Very well put Rich. Ed Herring AMR2 BaR Administrator 512-314-1133 Cell Phone 512-917-8480 From: Rich Bowen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:39 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: 2.2.7

Re: 2.2.7

2007/9/27, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Um ... No, that's not at all what's being said. Quite apart from the > history of the founding of that company ... but that's utterly irrelevant > here. Companies aren't participants in Apache projects. Individuals are. > > IMHO, this kind of subtletie

Re: 2.2.7

On 27.09.2007, at 10:05, François wrote: 2007/9/27, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [...] Here at [EMAIL PROTECTED] we are trying to create a better server, and having fun in the process. As long as we don't splinter the effort of improving httpd server or make more work for the

Re: 2.2.7

Regarding the threatening mail from Roy T. Fielding, : "There would not be a windows version of Apache without Bill's efforts to keep it alive, and there won't be one in the future if windows developers refuse to participate in the development mailing lists HERE." Really ? Do you mean that w

Re: 2.2.7

2007/9/27, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > [...] Here at [EMAIL PROTECTED] we are trying to create a better server, and > having > fun in the process. As long as we don't splinter the effort of improving > httpd server or make more work for the project members, we'll all have fun >

Re: 2.2.7

Roy really said everything necessary, I hesitated to even respond to you. But I'll offer this so that my frustration is perfectly clear and we (you and I, and for other devs in relation to other service providers as well) can coexist peacefully. Steffen wrote: >> Tom's done a great job of clarifyi

Re: 2.2.7

On Sep 26, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Steffen wrote: There we go again Bill with your phrase above. I do not appreciate that you communcate like this in Public, please stop it. More and more I got the impression that you do not want AL in the scene, fine, say it to me personal. You are oh so happy wi

Re: 2.2.7

"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, 26 September, 2007 21:42 Subject: Re: 2.2.7 Steffen wrote: There is the ASF statement/promise: "Modules compiled for Apache 2.2 should continue to work for all 2.2.x releases." ***SHOULD*** is the oper

Re: 2.2.7

Steffen wrote: > > I want to give attention to > http://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/apache-226/ > > May be agood time to reconsider the depency for example with APR. Actually, I'm a fan of that idea - but not in the httpd 2.2.x cycle. It would be great to see 2.4.0 (3.0.0?) presume the la

Re: 2.2.7

Steffen wrote: > There is the ASF statement/promise: > > "Modules compiled for Apache 2.2 should continue to work for all 2.2.x > releases." ***SHOULD*** is the operative word. There are always exceptions. I have a half dozen examples where I've abused the microsoft foundation classes in my cod

Re: 2.2.7

September, 2007 21:05 Subject: Re: 2.2.7 There is the ASF statement/promise: "Modules compiled for Apache 2.2 should continue to work for all 2.2.x releases." So I expect that modules have *not* to be new compiled. It is quite confusing for our users en authors have to maintain in mo

Re: 2.2.7

erver Project - Original Message - From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, 26 September, 2007 18:50 Subject: Re: 2.2.7 Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like for us to consider a release of 2.2.7 in October to address the Windows file hand

Re: 2.2.7

On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:50 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like for us to consider a release of 2.2.7 in October to address the Windows file handle issues as well some other fixes that would be useful to get out quickly... How about 2 :) I expect to have Windows fixe

Re: 2.2.7

Jim Jagielski wrote: > I'd like for us to consider a release of 2.2.7 in October > to address the Windows file handle issues as well > some other fixes that would be useful to get out quickly... How about 2 :) I expect to have Windows fixes ready to backport next week after the perlfolk confirm m

Re: 2.2.7

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:15:06 +0200 Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am not quite sure if the proxy patches Nick is currently > working on will fit into this timescale. Depending on their importance > we might need to have a look on the timescale again. Of course it puts pressure on t

Re: 2.2.7

On 09/26/2007 03:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I'd like for us to consider a release of 2.2.7 in October > to address the Windows file handle issues as well > some other fixes that would be useful to get out quickly... > +1 as soon as the Windows file handle issues are fixed in APR and probably