On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:50:37 -
rj...@apache.org wrote:
+/* Special case utf8: it is often unknown (no alias) */
+if (!strcmp(charset, utf8)) {
charset was uppercased just before this (at least when called from
within this source file), so a comparison to a lowercase string isn't
On 27.11.2012 14:51, Nick Kew wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:50:37 -
rj...@apache.org wrote:
+/* Special case utf8: it is often unknown (no alias) */
+if (!strcmp(charset, utf8)) {
charset was uppercased just before this (at least when called from
within this source file),
After upgrading mail-archives I checked the APR error messages the
instance writes. Those are not new, they were also written for the odl
version.
The messages are due to the fact, that the old and the new bundled apr
versions are compiled without iconv support. So mod_mbox can not convert
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:44 AM, traw...@apache.org wrote:
Author: trawick
Date: Tue Feb 21 13:44:30 2012
New Revision: 1291781
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1291781view=rev
Log:
generated files from r1291779
(pick up the navigation update)
Hmmm, not live yet. (This is handled
Issue Type: Improvement
Security Level: public (Regular issues)
Reporter: Henri Yandell
Priority: Minor
Looking at
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-infrastructure-dev/201112.mbox/%3ca603ffce-623b-43e9-87f8-39baa51c7...@gbiv.com%3E
Looking at
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-infrastructure-dev/2
01112.mbox/%3ca603ffce-623b-43e9-87f8-39baa51c7...@gbiv.com%3E -
it would be nice to know what mailing list the email is to in
the UI. Currently you have to infer it from links or the url.
Having it as some kind
)
Reporter: Henri Yandell
Priority: Minor
Looking at
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-infrastructure-dev/2
01112.mbox/%3ca603ffce-623b-43e9-87f8-39baa51c7...@gbiv.com%3E -
it would be nice to know what mailing list the email is to in
the UI
Certain mails cause mod_mbox to hang; maybe it is chewing on memory.
Does that issue still reproduce now that I've cut mail-archives.a.o over
to aurora (which runs a different httpd)?
Yes, the Sep 29th mails from press@ don't display in Firefox.
However, I just tried one of the same
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Noah Slaternsla...@apache.org wrote:
Hey,
I just sent the following email to the CouchDB developer list:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/couchdb-dev/200907.mbox/20090722214200.ga11...@tumbolia.org
Preparing these emails is such a chore, I thought
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 08:48:23AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
mod_mbox is open source:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/mod_mbox/trunk/
patches welcome :)
I'm kept more than busy enough with CouchDB! Heh.
The Infra team isn't aware of a good alternative, but sure, if there
was one, we
Hey,
I just sent the following email to the CouchDB developer list:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/couchdb-dev/200907.mbox/20090722214200.ga11...@tumbolia.org
Preparing these emails is such a chore, I thought I'd post some comments here:
* The URIs are really horrible
Please stop your sending email to me.
Thank you.
- Original Message -
From: Paul Querna p...@querna.org
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mod_mbox id escaping
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Rick van der Zwet
i...@rickvanderzwet.nl
When a ampersand '' is included into the message header, it is not
escaped properly causing an XML validation error.
It currently using URI_ESCAPE_OR_BLANK, but I Message-Id is not of URI
type, actually ESCAPE_OR_BLANK needs to be used.
/Rick
--
http://rickvanderzwet.nl
mod_mbox_out.c.patch
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Rick van der Zwet
i...@rickvanderzwet.nl wrote:
When a ampersand '' is included into the message header, it is not
escaped properly causing an XML validation error.
It currently using URI_ESCAPE_OR_BLANK, but I Message-Id is not of URI
type, actually
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 8:51 AM, pque...@apache.org wrote:
Author: pquerna
Date: Sat Dec 27 08:51:31 2008
New Revision: 729641
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729641view=rev
Log:
Change the sitemap index generator to split the sitemap indexes every 500
entries, as the great GOOG
AP_DEBUG on a SuSE box causes the module to compile and adding it to Debian
causes the compile to fail.
mod_mbox_util-mod-mbox-util.o: In function `scan_dir':
/root/mod_mbox/module-2.0/mod-mbox-util.c:162: undefined reference to
`ap_strstr'
server/util_debug.c always implements the functions
in the included
httpd.h file, its not clear to me what changes I should make to the module
source in order to get it to compile correctly with -DAP_DEBUG set.
Any recommendations?
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Gregory Boyce wrote:
Hello,
I'm currently looking to deploy mod_mbox on a SuSE 10 server
Hello,
I'm currently looking to deploy mod_mbox on a SuSE 10 server, and I'm
having some issues getting the package to compile. I'm hoping that
someone might be able to shed some light on the issue.
mod_mbox_util-mod-mbox-util.o: In function `scan_dir':
/root/mod_mbox/module-2.0/mod-mbox
Hi,
I have got 3 patches against the trunk of mod_mbox:
* mod_mbox.c.patch:
A directive like 'MboxAntiSpam Off' was ever picked up, cause it was
initially set to 1 and could never be overwritten, I used the code
from the mod_mime module to get the expected behavior
On 7/17/07, Chris Haumesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is the above still an accurate statement of attachment handling status in
mod_mbox? If so, does anyone know what it would take to add this
functionality? Anyone interested in helping us for a modest bounty?
This should be fixed
This should be fixed in r560612.
The change has been deployed to mail-archives.apache.org; so the JPEG image
in
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-axis-user/200704.mbox/raw/%3C46
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/2
Awesome -- Thanks!!
Hi,
I'm trying to help a client improve its list archives. They've been using
mailman with pipermail for many years, and pipermail is problematic in many
ways.
We like the look and feel of mod_mbox, and would like to deploy it. However,
it doesn't seem to handle common attachments
ways.
We like the look and feel of mod_mbox, and would like to deploy it.
However, it doesn't seem to handle common attachments correctly (as of svn
rev 556672).
Here's an example from an apache list (check the jpeg attachment):
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-axis-user/200704
Chris Haumesser wrote:
---
mod_mbox has now a brand new and complete MIME parser. The attachment
downloading is still to be implemented, but it's really no big deal
considering the data structures generated by the mbox_mime_decode_multipart()
function.
---
Is the above still
Further to the e-mail below, can anyone confirm if this is a known
problem with mod_mbox?
The problem also occurs in the mailing list archives for this mailing list:
For example:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200704.mbox/date
The messages dated Tue, 03 Apr, 14:44
entries is selected,
the Next in Date link does not work - the same message is redisplayed.
For example:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-jmeter-dev/200703.mbox/date
the first entry is duplicated; click on either, and the link
refers to the same message.
The back links
Hi,
We are trying to use mod_mbox with large range of mailing lists, and
got some problems, firstly is a problem about spam, if you activate the
Antispam option it obfuscate the email adresses on message view but not
in raw message, so we done a patch to hide the raw message link
( attached file
Le Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:52:55 +0100,
Maxime Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Hi,
Le 1 févr. 07 à 13:36, Nahuel ANGELINETTI a écrit :
We are trying to use mod_mbox with large range of mailing lists, and
got some problems, firstly is a problem about spam, if you
activate
Hi,
Le 1 févr. 07 à 15:48, Nahuel ANGELINETTI a écrit :
We are firstly users, because we have not only one project, but we can
contribute as we could ;)
Ok. If you have some time for this these days, shoot patches, we'll
review them.
Thanks for your work,
- Maxime
--
Maxime Petazzoni
Hi,
Le 9 janv. 07 à 15:30, Bernard Buri a écrit :
Here are some patches for mod_mbox to correcly display binary mime-
parts.
Please review;
Ok, it's been long since I got the time to dive into mod_mbox's code
and I may be mistaking here, but isn't this change enough (and
lighter
Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
Hi,
Le 9 janv. 07 à 15:30, Bernard Buri a écrit :
Here are some patches for mod_mbox to correcly display binary mime-parts.
Please review;
Ok, it's been long since I got the time to dive into mod_mbox's code and
I may be mistaking here, but isn't this change enough
Do you have an example (message ID of an email that can test this
change) ?
Thanks,
- sam
--
Maxime Petazzoni (http://www.bulix.org)
-- gone crazy, back soon. leave message.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi!
Here are some patches for mod_mbox to correcly display binary mime-parts.
Please review;
--- module-2.0/mod_mbox.h.orig Tue Jan 9 15:06:24 2007
+++ module-2.0/mod_mbox.h Tue Jan 9 15:06:01 2007
@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@
mbox_mime_message_t *mbox_mime_decode_multipart(apr_pool_t *p, char *body
On Nov 12, 2006, at 12:50 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
FWIW, mod_mbox, which you listed as dormant, has had more commits
in the last 6 months than the 1.3.x branch.
BTW, are you talking about one of the mod_mbox branches? I saw only
a couple minor changes on trunk in the last 6 months.
Ah, now I
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Nov 12, 2006, at 12:50 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
FWIW, mod_mbox, which you listed as dormant, has had more commits in
the last 6 months than the 1.3.x branch.
BTW, are you talking about one of the mod_mbox branches? I saw only
a couple minor changes on trunk
On 11/12/06, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a work-in-progress patch, integrating CLuence[1] as a full text
search engine for mod_mbox.
+1 (concept). Since lucene4c isn't going anywhere soon, it makes
sense to look at other integration avenues.
Bonus points if you remove
Hi,
Could anyone tell me which version of mod_mbox apache is running over here?
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/
The latest official tag of mod_mbox is 0.2
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/mod_mbox/tags/0.2, but
there are quite a few usefull changes inside trunk ;-)
http
(I sent this to dev@ yesterday, but I wasn't subscribed then.
Presumably the message just got dropped. It would have been
nice to have a bounce message at least, but perhaps the levels
of spam make even that impossible. Alas.)
When mod_mbox sees a multipart message, the code
not suffer
from the same problem ... I hope.
Applying this patch would certainly be an improvement,
despite these deficiencies. It might be better to do
something that goes further, but I shan't attempt to
do so without some idea of what kind of going-further
is thought appropriate by the mod_mbox
, and working. Thanks for your work and for making
it neat.
You're welcome.
*
Speaking of mod_mbox problems, the dev@ archives at apache.org
(which are managed by mod_mbox) seem to be some way behind the
times. Gmane shows 20 messages already in June, whereas the official
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
Speaking of mod_mbox problems, the dev@ archives at apache.org
(which are managed by mod_mbox) seem to be some way behind the
times. Gmane shows 20 messages already in June, whereas the official
archives have only 8. Perhaps it's just that the archives are
only updated
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Paul Querna
Currently, it might be more, since the server hosting the
mail archives,
ajax, has an rsync that can take longer than an hour to
complete... so,
it might be up to several hours behind, but it should never
be more than
that.
On 2/14/06, Maxime Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Otherwise, I'd like to have some more detailled explanations (or a mail
reference to) on this veto.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-mbox-dev/200504.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
HTH. -- justin
On 2/10/06, Maxime Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okkaay. Please read again my paragraph. Now please read the STATUS
file. The current automake setup *works*, and migrating to the same
build system than httpd is planned. If you don't want any mod_mbox
release to go out until I find
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 2/10/06, Maxime Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okkaay. Please read again my paragraph. Now please read the STATUS
file. The current automake setup *works*, and migrating to the same
build system than httpd is planned. If you don't want any mod_mbox
release to go
* Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-11 11:53:40]:
automake doesn't work. The solution is to revert Paul's commit that
introduces automake. (Paul should really be the one doing this - not
you - since he started this mess and promised that he'd revert it way
back when.)
I'm not
On 2/11/06, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you really want me to revert it I will. Then we won't have any build
system at all.
Maybe you are forgetting what we had before. A single makefile with
paths hard coded for your home directory.
build-dso was the 'build' system - not
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 2/11/06, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you really want me to revert it I will. Then we won't have any build
system at all.
Maybe you are forgetting what we had before. A single makefile with
paths hard coded for your home directory.
build-dso was the
Folks you are talking over each other.
Why not simply ./automake and check in the resulting ./autoconf-ready files?
If you desire to delete the automake files afterwards, th
Bill
Paul Querna wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 2/11/06, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you really want
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Folks you are talking over each other.
Why not simply ./automake and check in the resulting ./autoconf-ready
files? If you desire to delete the automake files afterwards, th
...at's fine. It's how we migrated the incubating mod_ftp out of automake.
Of course
Hi,
* Maxime Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-10 01:22:22]:
Before releasing mod_mbox, we need the work done in the surgery branch
back to trunk. So, unless there is any objections to it, here it what
I'll do in the next few days :
- Move the scripts/ directory one level up, outside
* Maxime Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-12 01:50:38]:
Expect for the automake problem, I already made the necessary changes
to the surgery branch to comply with justin's will (aka not having an
src/ directory and renaming data/ to docroot/).
s/Expect/Except/
Too late out there, need
not that the functionnal code is the same as in mod_mbox
trunk/, including tonight's bugfix.
(Assuming you mean 'Please note' instead of 'Please not'.)
Can you please consider removing automake? (I did -1 it when Paul
committed automake the first time.) And, then you can toss the
ludicrous src/ directory too. All
. Please not that the functionnal code is the same as in mod_mbox
trunk/, including tonight's bugfix.
(Assuming you mean 'Please note' instead of 'Please not'.)
Can you please consider removing automake? (I did -1 it when Paul
committed automake the first time.) And, then you can toss the
ludicrous
this bug. The length was indeed wrong because a
MIME
subpart length was recomputed afterwards in a buggy way. I don't even
know how it worked before ;-)
Updated mod_mbox to r376882. Any core after the following time stamp:
[Fri Feb 10 23:50:32 2006] [notice] Apache/2.2.0 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.0
Hi,
* Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-10 07:54:49]:
Can you please consider removing automake? (I did -1 it when Paul
committed automake the first time.)
If you feel brave enough to get a hand on the new build system, feel
free to do so. Personally, I don't know how it works,
On 2/10/06, Maxime Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It works, in a very simple and common way, and changing the build
system is not (yet) part of the showstoppers. Please keep in mind that
I want this release to be some kind of out-of-SoC release, not a
mod-mbox-has-become-the-killer-module
. The current automake setup *works*, and migrating to the same
build system than httpd is planned. If you don't want any mod_mbox
release to go out until I find an fscking large piece of time to
understand of to get rid of automake -aka in a very, very long time-,
just say that, and I wont bother
I hadn't checked in a while, but there seem to be lots of mod_mbox
cores on ajax again. Here's one backtrace:
#0 mbox_cte_escape_html (p=0x60343ca8,
s=0x602f5a68
--_=_NextPart_001_01C3C08D.F854E1E0\nContent-Type:
text/html;Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable\n
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:56:53PM -0500, Joshua Slive wrote:
I hadn't checked in a while, but there seem to be lots of mod_mbox
cores on ajax again. Here's one backtrace:
#0 mbox_cte_escape_html (p=0x60343ca8,
s=0x602f5a68
--_=_NextPart_001_01C3C08D.F854E1E0
On 02/09/2006 10:56 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
I hadn't checked in a while, but there seem to be lots of mod_mbox
cores on ajax again. Here's one backtrace:
#0 mbox_cte_escape_html (p=0x60343ca8,
s=0x602f5a68
--_=_NextPart_001_01C3C08D.F854E1E0\nContent-Type:
text
* Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-09 23:56:34]:
I have no further knowledge in the mbox code, but the value of len does not
look good
to me. Are the values of len for other cores of a similar magnitude?
My last commits fix this bug. The length was indeed wrong because a MIME
Hi,
It's been long since I last tried to release v0.2 of mod_mbox, without
success. The bug fixed tonight made me focus again on mod_mbox and I
really would like to see things changing and moving on.
Recently, I've been working on cleaning up the directory structure of
the module's source code
* Maxime Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-10 17:56:38]:
Finally, I would like to know your feelings about the surgery branch
that was created a few weeks ago : the module is operational and this
branch provide a cleaner and more evolutive directory structure, as
well as a complete
Hi,
First, I would like to bring back (again) the subject of mod_mbox
helper scripts and program on the table.
I understand why these scripts are important in order to maintain the
ASF mail archives website. These scripts call some helper programs
(actually contained in the trunk/module-2.0
.
No, they don't. They can call either mod-mbox-util or the helper apps. (I
really don't like mod-mbox-util - busybox still apps are awful and are
confusing to understand; but I obviously lost that battle.)
I think without these scripts mod_mbox is largely useless. You need some
scripts to help
for
the mod_mbox user (as an admin) but only for an internal purpose. Thus
I propose that we move the scripts directory one level up :
I think they do belong and should be included in a release. Namely, I
don't buy Roy's arguments against including them. The potential benefit to
understanding how
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:22:18AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I think they do belong and should be included in a release. Namely, I
don't buy Roy's arguments against including them. The potential benefit to
understanding how mod_mbox works outweighs the slight cost of including
some
* Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-10 18:44:51]:
If someone were to contemplate making a general version of those
scripts - what would have a reasonable chance of getting accepted? perl?
ksh? C?
I don't see why these scripts have to run with Zsh. They should be
able to run with SH w/o
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 06:47:42PM +0100, Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
* Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-10 18:44:51]:
If someone were to contemplate making a general version of those
scripts - what would have a reasonable chance of getting accepted? perl?
ksh? C?
I don't see why
Mads Toftum wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:22:18AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I think they do belong and should be included in a release. Namely, I
don't buy Roy's arguments against including them. The potential benefit to
understanding how mod_mbox works outweighs the slight cost
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:51:36AM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
Python!
Excellent choice - at least that way I won't have to even consider
trying ;)
vh
Mads Toftum
--
`Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 06:43:53PM +0100, Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
If one is able to build mod_mbox and make Apache use it, he is also
able to setup his archives as described in the online documentation.
What documentation? The mod_mbox pages on our website don't give any
information on how
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 06:55:37PM +0100, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:51:36AM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
Python!
Excellent choice - at least that way I won't have to even consider
trying ;)
Even Perl would be an improvement over zsh. =) -- justin
* Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-10 09:56:56]:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 06:43:53PM +0100, Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
If one is able to build mod_mbox and make Apache use it, he is also
able to setup his archives as described in the online documentation.
What documentation
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 06:55:37PM +0100, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:51:36AM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
Python!
Excellent choice - at least that way I won't have to even consider
trying ;)
Even Perl would be an improvement over zsh. =) -- justin
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 06:55:37PM +0100, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:51:36AM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
Python!
Excellent choice - at least that way I won't have to even consider
trying ;)
Even Perl would be an improvement over
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jan 5, 2006, at 4:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ In order to handle empty boundaries, we'll look for the
+ boundary plus the \n. */
+
+boundary_line = apr_pstrcat(p, --, mail-boundary, \n, NULL);
/* The start boundary */
-bound =
* William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-07 02:50:23]:
Why not
+boundary_line = apr_pstrcat(p, --, mail-boundary, \r\n, NULL);
which should be far faster than a regex evaluation?
Actually this problem has already been cut off by r366386 because yes,
a regexp is not a fast
Hi,
After some problems with SORBS, I can finally answer.
* Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-04 22:09:28]:
(gdb) print r-finfo-fname
$1 = 0x6041b937
/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The source .mbox for this message id is:
ws-axis-c-dev/200503.mbox
Quite funny actually. I recall a
On Jan 5, 2006, at 4:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+In order to handle empty boundaries, we'll look for the
+boundary plus the \n. */
+
+ boundary_line = apr_pstrcat(p, --, mail-boundary, \n, NULL);
/* The start boundary */
- bound = ap_strstr(mail-body,
Hi,
* Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-05 16:39:16]:
+boundary_line = apr_pstrcat(p, --, mail-boundary, \n, NULL);
/* The start boundary */
-bound = ap_strstr(mail-body, mail-boundary);
+bound = ap_strstr(mail-body, boundary_line);
That seems a bit risky --
the same as above. Note the remark about the possibility
of stack corruption. Do we have something overwriting the stack frame?
The other three cores are for the same fname. Wonder what mail that
is that seems to reproducably crash mod_mbox.
The httpd-2.2.0 I just installed is running the same
Sander Temme wrote:
... in /raid1/httpd-cores. I have made them 644 for perusal. There
appears to be a core every couple of days, from the 2.1.10 image that
was running on the box until tonight.
Unless I'm doing something wrong with gdb, they're not very useful.
Here's a backtrace from
* William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-12-23 17:53:40]:
Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
Since this tarball was not yet a release, does it still apply ? You're
getting self-contradictory here :)
He really isn't... what Justin is saying is that the tarball you called
0.2.0
was created
Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
Understood. I'll learn from my mistakes :) (I just hope I won't make too
many of them!)
Don't worry about it... and don't let others worry you too
much about it either :)
--
===
Jim Jagielski
Hi,
* Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-12-21 17:03:22]:
I did not changed my mind on this point : these scripts do not belong
to the mod_mbox repository, or at least not to trunk/ (and thus,
releases).
I think they should stay in trunk. I just don't think they should
be included
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
Ok, updated tarballs have been uploaded to
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_mbox. Vote is restarted.
They should be called 0.2.1, though I'll let that pass as there were
no code changes. However, you do need to remember to check
--On December 23, 2005 1:56:03 PM -0800 Roy T. Fielding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
Ok, updated tarballs have been uploaded to
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_mbox. Vote is restarted.
They should be called 0.2.1, though I'll let
* Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-12-23 13:57:17]:
--On December 23, 2005 1:56:03 PM -0800 Roy T. Fielding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
Ok, updated tarballs have been uploaded to
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_mbox. Vote
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 01:56:03PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
no code changes. However, you do need to remember to check the
file permissions after uploading the files. They need to be
chmod 664 *
I fixed them myself the last time, but don't have time right now.
I've already
--On December 24, 2005 12:00:57 AM +0100 Maxime Petazzoni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw, why does this tarball should be called 0.2.1 ? Just because I
changed some files in the archive ? I just need some explainations :
since 0.2.0 was never released, why sould we increment the revision number
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Yes, a release is one-shot only. Once you announce it, it's technically
burned. This is why we don't have release candidates... It is either
approved or it isn't. -- justin
Thus our mantra, Version numbers are cheap :)
* Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-12-23 15:13:47]:
--On December 24, 2005 12:00:57 AM +0100 Maxime Petazzoni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw, why does this tarball should be called 0.2.1 ? Just because I
changed some files in the archive ? I just need some explainations :
since
On 12/23/05, Maxime Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since this tarball was not yet a release, does it still apply ? You're
getting self-contradictory here :)
It doesn't really matter, the point is that you've now got a situation
where there are multiple different tarballs with the same
--On December 24, 2005 12:49:33 AM +0100 Maxime Petazzoni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since this tarball was not yet a release, does it still apply ?
Yes.
You're getting self-contradictory here :)
It's not self-contradictory at all. A release occurs when you (as RM) say
is is created.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Yes, a release is one-shot only. Once you announce it, it's technically
burned. This is why we don't have release candidates... It is either
approved or it isn't. -- justin
Thus our mantra, Version numbers are cheap :)
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On December 24, 2005 12:00:57 AM +0100 Maxime Petazzoni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw, why does this tarball should be called 0.2.1 ? Just because I
changed some files in the archive ? I just need some explainations :
since 0.2.0 was never released, why sould
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:00:10AM +0100, Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
According to what Bill said, I'm now waiting for votes on making it
Alpha, Beta or GA.
Thank you, and sorry for the mess. We should add a paragraph to the
Release Guidelines about the release candidate
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Um, no. We don't have release candidates. You followed the documented
procedures correctly - you aren't the confused one. =) -- justin
Sorry, Justin. I just reviewed the Guidelines, and they are, simply, wrong.
Email dev@httpd.apache.org,
1 - 100 of 277 matches
Mail list logo
