On Wednesday 12 June 2013 21:18:05 Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 11 June 2013, André Malo wrote:
trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1491155
2.4.x patch: trunk patch works
nd: why would you do that in a stable branch?
+ sf: Because it is only annoying
On 14.06.2013 16:41, André Malo wrote:
On Wednesday 12 June 2013 21:18:05 Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 11 June 2013, André Malo wrote:
trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1491155
2.4.x patch: trunk patch works
nd: why would you do that in a stable branch?
+ sf:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:41 AM, André Malo n...@perlig.de wrote:
On Wednesday 12 June 2013 21:18:05 Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 11 June 2013, André Malo wrote:
trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1491155
2.4.x patch: trunk patch works
nd: why would you do
On Friday 14 June 2013 17:34:26 Rainer Jung wrote:
On 14.06.2013 16:41, André Malo wrote:
On Wednesday 12 June 2013 21:18:05 Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 11 June 2013, André Malo wrote:
trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1491155
2.4.x patch: trunk patch works
On Jun 14, 2013 11:36 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:41 AM, André Malo n...@perlig.de wrote:
On Wednesday 12 June 2013 21:18:05 Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 11 June 2013, André Malo wrote:
trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1491155
On 14.06.2013 17:44, André Malo wrote:
On Friday 14 June 2013 17:34:26 Rainer Jung wrote:
On 14.06.2013 16:41, André Malo wrote:
On Wednesday 12 June 2013 21:18:05 Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 11 June 2013, André Malo wrote:
trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1491155
2.4.x
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Rainer Jung []
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 18:08
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1491612 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
We do cosmetical changes in stable branches like e.g. reducing code
drift between trunk and 2.4
On Jun 14, 2013, at 11:44 AM, André Malo n...@perlig.de wrote:
I agree, that the block should simply die. However, I question the value of
doing cosmetical changes in our stable branches (which is the justification
in STATUS).
FWIW, I agree. I don't mind such clean-ups and cosmetic
On Jun 14, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
We do cosmetical changes in stable branches like e.g. reducing code
drift between trunk and 2.4 or fixing typos in comments.
Of course. That's not the question (at least IMO). The question
is that when a cosmetic
Of course. That's not the question (at least IMO). The question
is that when a cosmetic change also results in a functional
change (and we wouldn't be suggesting MMN bumps if it wasn't),
that it becomes a change that should be proposed as a backport
and not willy-nilly added. We have a
On Jun 14, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course. That's not the question (at least IMO). The question
is that when a cosmetic change also results in a functional
change (and we wouldn't be suggesting MMN bumps if it wasn't),
that it becomes a change that should
On Tuesday 11 June 2013, André Malo wrote:
trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1491155
2.4.x patch: trunk patch works
nd: why would you do that in a stable branch?
+ sf: Because it is only annoying and serves no purpose
anymore. If you + want, we can
* s...@apache.org wrote:
Author: sf
Date: Mon Jun 10 21:41:07 2013
New Revision: 1491612
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1491612
Log:
comment
Modified:
httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
URL:
13 matches
Mail list logo
