Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-09-03 Thread Brian Akins
On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 13:59, Mladen Turk wrote: > > You have a simple option though - grab 2.0. Replace the modules/proxy/ > > tree with 2.1-dev and voila - buildconf - configure - make install. Any docs on how to actually use the balancer? Looking at the source isn't helping me :) Thanks..

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-09-02 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
At 12:59 PM 9/2/2004, Mladen Turk wrote: >William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>>Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in >>>future 2.0.x release >>[...] please don't expect them >>to sympathize when n.x.z -> n.x.(z+1) starts breaking things, this >>undermines the confidence

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-09-02 Thread Mladen Turk
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Bad news for me and many others since without AJP support included in 2.0.x, users will still require to have mod_jk to link there HTTPD to Tomcats. Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in future 2.0.x release Admins understand why n.x -> (

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-09-02 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
At 09:25 AM 9/2/2004, Henri Gomez wrote: >Bad news for me and many others since without AJP support included in >2.0.x, users will still require to have mod_jk to link there HTTPD to >Tomcats. > >Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in >future 2.0.x release, since Gra

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-09-02 Thread Nick Kew
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Henri Gomez wrote: > Bad news for me and many others since without AJP support included in > 2.0.x, users will still require to have mod_jk to link there HTTPD to > Tomcats. > > Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in > future 2.0.x release, since

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-09-02 Thread Henri Gomez
Bad news for me and many others since without AJP support included in 2.0.x, users will still require to have mod_jk to link there HTTPD to Tomcats. Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in future 2.0.x release, since Graham, Mladen and Jean-Frederic works hard to mak

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-09-02 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
At 07:55 AM 9/2/2004, Henri Gomez wrote: >Should we see the works on mod_proxy and ajp support in the upcoming 2.0.51 ? No, not in 2.0.51 (and to your following question of 2.0.x later releases, also likely no.) Yes, in 2.1.0. It was commented that mod_proxy is becoming quite stable - bug fixes

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-09-02 Thread Henri Gomez
Should we see the works on mod_proxy and ajp support in the upcoming 2.0.51 ? Regards

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-09-01 Thread Joe Orton
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:28:31PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 06:32:12PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: > > > Something got in the way. I've got a round tuit reserved for today though ;) > > > > Would be good if you could pick up the tip of the APR/-util 0.9 branches >

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-09-01 Thread Sander Striker
- Original Message - From: "Joe Orton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 7:27 PM Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0 > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 06:32:12PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: > > Something got in

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-09-01 Thread Joe Orton
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 06:32:12PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: > Something got in the way. I've got a round tuit reserved for today though ;) Would be good if you could pick up the tip of the APR/-util 0.9 branches to avoid the build failures on the revisions you tagged. joe

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-09-01 Thread Sander Striker
From: "Jess Holle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 5:04 PM > Sander Striker wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >I'm going to start a T&R cycle for both 2.0 and 2.1 monday. > >Objections? > > > >Sander > > > > > > > How is this going? > > [Anxiously awaiting 2.0.51 tarballs...] Som

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-09-01 Thread Jess Holle
Sander Striker wrote: Hi, I'm going to start a T&R cycle for both 2.0 and 2.1 monday. Objections? Sander How is this going? [Anxiously awaiting 2.0.51 tarballs...] -- Jess Holle

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-08-27 Thread Graham Leggett
Sander Striker wrote: I'm going to start a T&R cycle for both 2.0 and 2.1 monday. Objections? With the imminent release of APR v1.0, would it be possible to make the default build of v2.1.0 link to an external install of APR v1.0, instead of including a dedicated apr within the srclib directory a

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-08-26 Thread Brad Nicholes
Same here. I need another vote for the util_ldap.c backport Brad Brad Nicholes Senior Software Engineer Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions http://www.novell.com >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thursday, August 26, 2004 11:21:22 AM >>> Sander Striker wrote: > Hi, > > I'm goin

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-08-26 Thread Bill Stoddard
Sander Striker wrote: Hi, I'm going to start a T&R cycle for both 2.0 and 2.1 monday. Objections? Sander Got a few 2.0 backports from 2.1 I need to drum up support for but otherwise +1 Bill

Re: Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-08-26 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
--On Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:08 PM +0200 Sander Striker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm going to start a T&R cycle for both 2.0 and 2.1 monday. Objections? Vote early and often for APR 1.0 so that 2.1 can use an official 1.0 release of APR. ;-) -- justin

Time for 2.0.51 and 2.1.0

2004-08-26 Thread Sander Striker
Hi, I'm going to start a T&R cycle for both 2.0 and 2.1 monday. Objections? Sander