Re: Time for 1.3.30?

2004-03-10 Thread Jeff Trawick
Jim Jagielski wrote: There are a few open patches floating about, but in general I think we're close to a point where we should seriously consider 1.3.30. I volunteer to be RM... I'd like to shoot for mid-late next week for a release. Comments? sounds reasonable here's a simple patch I just saw

Time for 1.3.30?

2004-03-09 Thread Jim Jagielski
There are a few open patches floating about, but in general I think we're close to a point where we should seriously consider 1.3.30. I volunteer to be RM... I'd like to shoot for mid-late next week for a release. Comments? -- ===

Re: Time for 1.3.30?

2004-03-09 Thread Geoffrey Young
Jim Jagielski wrote: There are a few open patches floating about, but in general I think we're close to a point where we should seriously consider 1.3.30. I volunteer to be RM... I'd like to shoot for mid-late next week for a release. Comments? I just added a simple thing to STATUS that

Re: Time for 1.3.30?

2004-03-09 Thread Rasmus Lerdorf
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Jim Jagielski wrote: There are a few open patches floating about, but in general I think we're close to a point where we should seriously consider

Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-20 Thread gregames
Ben Laurie wrote: Jeff Trawick wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish. one question: who would support putting the 1.3 versions of mod_backtrace and mod_whatkilledus in experimental? +1. +1 Greg

Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-19 Thread Bill Stoddard
Ben Laurie wrote: Jeff Trawick wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish. Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0. one question: who would support putting the 1.3 versions of

Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-19 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Feb 18, 2004, at 1:19 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish. Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0. one question: who would support putting the 1.3 versions of

Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-18 Thread Jim Jagielski
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish. Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|]

Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-18 Thread Bill Stoddard
Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish. Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0. +1 Bill

Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-18 Thread Sander Striker
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish. Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0. In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49 aswell? Sander

Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-18 Thread Jim Jagielski
We have a showstopper, don't we? On Feb 18, 2004, at 12:34 PM, Sander Striker wrote: On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish. Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but also to coincide with the changeover to AL

Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-18 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Sander Striker wrote: In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49 aswell? +1, but let's make sure to get the mod_usertrack fix finally committed. Jim already committed it to 1.3.x as far as I know, and there's no reason not to commit it to 2.0.x and 2.1.x except

RE: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-18 Thread Manni Wood
, all, for helping fix this bug. Cheers, -Manni -Original Message- From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30?? On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Sander Striker wrote

Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-18 Thread Brad Nicholes
+1 Brad Brad Nicholes Senior Software Engineer Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions http://www.novell.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:34:44 AM On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30

RE: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-18 Thread Manni Wood
Jim, Now I understand. Thanks to you and Cliff for helping stomp this bug! -Manni -Original Message- From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30?? Manni, What I

Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-18 Thread Ben Laurie
Jeff Trawick wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish. Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0. one question: who would support putting the 1.3 versions of mod_backtrace and

Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-18 Thread Henning Brauer
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-18 15:45]: I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 soonish. Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0. I have hughe problems with the new license. What exactly is the point of

Re: Time for 1.3.30??

2004-02-18 Thread Ben Hyde
On Feb 18, 2004, at 6:57 PM, Henning Brauer wrote: I have hughe problems with the new license. Sorry to hear that; a large number of people both inside and outside of the foundation worked very hard on the new license. Some of us are convinced that is a substantial improvement. What exactly is