On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 05:57:33AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> jwoolley02/05/29 22:57:33
>
> Modified:include ap_mmn.h
> Log:
> Imagine the horror. I go to try compiling PHP4, and it bombs out on
> r->boundary. BUT WAIT, I say, we have a test in there for that:
> #if !M
On 6 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> jerenkrantz02/05/06 01:21:10
>
> Modified:include ap_mmn.h
> Log:
> Removing a field in a core structure (r->boundary) merits a MMN bump,
> unfortunately. They got 2 GAs out of the old MMN.
>
> Reviewed by:Cliff Woolley
If peop
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/include ap_mmn.h
>
> T-1200
>
> If I don't see any agreement that this is the way to go, I'll be
Cliff Woolley wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>T-1200
>>If I don't see any agreement that this is the way to go, I'll be happy
>>to revert to the original mmn bump.
>>
>
>
>Bump the major. For the first couple of releases I don't see a big
>problem with that. Note th
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> T-1200
> If I don't see any agreement that this is the way to go, I'll be happy
> to revert to the original mmn bump.
Bump the major. For the first couple of releases I don't see a big
problem with that. Note that with 1.3.x, the major was bu
T-1200
If I don't see any agreement that this is the way to go, I'll be happy to
revert
to the original mmn bump.
Please comment. This should be a group decision.
Bill
At 07:59 AM 4/29/2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>Since a number of folks have complained about the major bump, I've
>rec
Since a number of folks have complained about the major bump, I've reconsidered
the impact on those testing 3rd party add-ons, and it would be good to
avoid this
bump due to internal changes for ssl, proxy and cgi.
But the APR changes are a little more troublesome. On win32 we can live with
a m
At 04:26 PM 4/17/2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>At 04:05 PM 4/17/2002, Greg Stein wrote:
>>Why is this change required?
>
>So we had to add the apr_progtype_e * so that it could be updated to reflect
>the new choice of interpreter.
Doug and I were just chatting about this. Perhaps if we chan
At 04:05 PM 4/17/2002, Greg Stein wrote:
>Why is this change required?
Sorry... pulled in 30 directions at once. Here's the short answer.
This bugfix is required. If you study the entire code path of CGI creation
for Win32... you will discover that -most- exec's are by explicit full path
name
Bill? Comments?
Why is this change required?
-g
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 02:46:25AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> Woah... this just blew away all modules built for 2.0.35. This is an API
> change, which thus means a very careful review of WHY this change was
> required. Specifically, is there any w
Woah... this just blew away all modules built for 2.0.35. This is an API
change, which thus means a very careful review of WHY this change was
required. Specifically, is there any way to avoid the change?
For example, we could introduce a new function, and call that one instead
from our code, lea
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:00:39AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> aaron 02/01/28 16:00:39
>
> Modified:include ap_mmn.h
> Log:
> I think this was supposed to have been bumped a couple times since
> the 14th, and was perhaps forgotten about? In any case, it needs to
> be bu
On Sunday 26 August 2001 17:16, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 11:06:55AM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
> > On 26 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > wrowe 01/08/25 22:15:09
> > >
> > > Modified:include ap_mmn.h
> > > Log:
> > > That last round calls for a bump.
> >
On 26 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> wrowe 01/08/25 22:15:09
>
> Modified:include ap_mmn.h
> Log:
> That last round calls for a bump.
>
> bump.
>
> Revision ChangesPath
> 1.19 +2 -1 httpd-2.0/include/ap_mmn.h
In 1.3, dependencies were generat
14 matches
Mail list logo
