[Of course this message doesn't make a whole lot of sense on [EMAIL PROTECTED],
reposting]
AFAIK - we were simply holding on apr[-util] 0.9 to be baked. Vote is
in-progress on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (in case you weren't watching that list - it
might
interest you to follow the low-level discussions
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 02:26:39AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Provided that passes, and if nobody speaks quickly and loudly, I'll RM a
tarball once that vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] flies. Speak now if there are
issues :)
I don't know if it's implicit or not, but we shouldn't bundle
On Monday 27 March 2006 11:07, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Since this is our first post 2.2 GA release, do we still want feedback
from infra? downgrading a.o might send some bad signals ;-) Or maybe
there's a subdomain or two running 2.0 still?
Huh? Who's talking about downgrading?
--
Nick
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:21:46AM +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
On Monday 27 March 2006 11:07, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Since this is our first post 2.2 GA release, do we still want feedback
from infra? downgrading a.o might send some bad signals ;-) Or maybe
there's a subdomain or two running
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:31:36AM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Until now, we've always had 3 days of 2.0 in production on ASF hardware
before going GA, and I'm wondering if we now treat 2.0 like 1.3 and not
do this on apache.org, or we politely ask infra to try out the candidate
(I don't
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 02:26:39AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Provided that passes, and if nobody speaks quickly and loudly, I'll RM a
tarball once that vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] flies. Speak now if there are
issues :)
I don't know if it's implicit or not,
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 12:46:05PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Provided that passes, and if nobody speaks quickly and loudly, I'll
RM a tarball once that vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] flies. Speak now if there
are issues :)
I don't know if it's implicit or not, but we shouldn't bundle
