> From: Dmitri Tikhonov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 8:53 PM
> Tagged "Januari 17?" :-)
*sigh*
Yeah, that's how you spell it in The Netherlands.
Fix comming up, although I might aswell roll it first...
Sander
Tagged "Januari 17?" :-)
- Dmitri.
On 17 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> striker 2003/01/17 11:07:31
>
> Modified:.Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
>include Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH ap_release.h
> Log:
> Bump after the tag.
>
> Revision Changes
Sander Striker wrote:
>From: Jeff Trawick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 8:11 PM
>you definitely da bomb!
Good or bad? ;)
I meant it as a compliment, of course!
(everything I know I learned from my 11-year-old daughter,
so beware)
> From: Jeff Trawick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 8:11 PM
> you definitely da bomb!
Good or bad? ;)
Sander
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> striker 2003/01/17 11:04:37
>>
>> Modified:include Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH ap_release.h
>> Log:
>> Bump for t
you definitely da bomb!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
striker 2003/01/17 11:04:37
Modified:include Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH ap_release.h
Log:
Bump for the tag.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> My train-of-thought is that if that the user's 2.0.43 conf still works,
> we succeeded :-)
+1
Joshua.
At 12:23 PM 11/23/2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
>On 23 Nov 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> looking over diffs from APACHE_2_0_43 to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH:
>>
>> . auth changes: IIRC, smart people decided the auth changes aren't
>> going to hurt anybody, so that's okay with me
>
>Fine, but can we PLEASE thi
At 08:11 AM 11/23/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>That sounds a lot like "decide which stuff now tagged
>APACHE_2_0_BRANCH should be deferred until 2.1" :) (or at least
>"deferred until after 2.0.44").
>
>looking over diffs from APACHE_2_0_43 to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH:
>
>. auth changes: IIRC, smart people
On 23 Nov 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> looking over diffs from APACHE_2_0_43 to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH:
>
> . auth changes: IIRC, smart people decided the auth changes aren't
> going to hurt anybody, so that's okay with me
Fine, but can we PLEASE think about the names a little more. As I've
said, so
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 06:50 AM 11/22/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >> wrowe 2002/11/21 18:08:42
> >>
> >> Modified:include ap_release.h
> >> Log:
> >> Branch tag APACHE_2_0_BRANCH now contains Apache 2.0 developme
At 06:50 AM 11/22/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> wrowe 2002/11/21 18:08:42
>>
>> Modified:include ap_release.h
>> Log:
>> Branch tag APACHE_2_0_BRANCH now contains Apache 2.0 development.
>>
>> Persist cvs HEAD as Apache 2.1.
>>
>> After
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> wrowe 2002/11/21 18:08:42
>
> Modified:include ap_release.h
> Log:
> Branch tag APACHE_2_0_BRANCH now contains Apache 2.0 development.
>
> Persist cvs HEAD as Apache 2.1.
>
> After discussion at AC, a number of individuals including San
At 02:41 PM 3/26/2002, you wrote:
> Log:
> Up to .35 [no need to call out .35-dev in changes, that's just silly.]
Cliff and Brian,
when your code is committed, please highlight the file/versions you need
pushed into the _34 tag, and I'll get those in.
Bill
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > As Ryan pointed out, there is no such thing as...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
>
>
> You two agreeing on so many things is starting to worry me. It can
*only*
>
> be a sign of the end times. :)
I actually just sent a message to Greg saying that same thing. :-)
Ryan
Greg Stein wrote:
> As Ryan pointed out, there is no such thing as...
>
> Cheers,
> -g
You two agreeing on so many things is starting to worry me. It can *only*
be a sign of the end times. :)
--
Paul J. Reder
---
"The strength of th
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:20:05AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>...
> Let me just go on record saying that I don't think we're in a
> position to release another version.
Of course we are. Call it an alpha. If you don't even think that is fine,
then call it a developer snapshot.
>...
> I won
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 09:48:38AM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>>
Yes, I have tagged 2.0.33. I won't roll the release until Aaron
>commits
>
the path problem fix. I'll announce when the roll is done.
>>>Let me just go on record
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
| I realize that this is a VERY sarcastic message. I am seriously trying
| to make a point here. Either we are developers all pulling towards a
| real release, or we aren't. I believe that we are.
This was my point during the past email thread re: release
> From: Brian Pane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 06 March 2002 19:35
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 09:48:38AM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >
> >>Yes, I have tagged 2.0.33. I won't roll the release until Aaron commits
> >>the path problem fix. I'll announce when the
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 09:48:38AM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >
> >>Yes, I have tagged 2.0.33. I won't roll the release until Aaron
commits
> >>the path problem fix. I'll announce when the roll is done.
> >>
> >
> >Let me just go on record saying that I don't thi
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 09:48:38AM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
>>Yes, I have tagged 2.0.33. I won't roll the release until Aaron commits
>>the path problem fix. I'll announce when the roll is done.
>>
>
>Let me just go on record saying that I don't think we're in a
>pos
> Let me just go on record saying that I don't think we're in a
> position to release another version.
I'll second that based on problems I still see
with filters - additional post coming momentarily.
Allan
>
> Modified:.CHANGES
>include ap_release.h
> Log:
> bump after the tag.
Yes, I have tagged 2.0.33. I won't roll the release until Aaron commits
the path problem fix. I'll announce when the roll is done.
Ryan
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 11:01 PM
> jwoolley01/08/30 21:01:19
>
> Modified:include ap_release.h
> Log:
> Ryan apparently bumped this back DOWN from 2.0.25 to 2.0.25-dev after the
> last tag, rather than UP to 2.0.26-dev. =-)
I know there was a
24 matches
Mail list logo
