Torsten Foertsch wrote:
> On Saturday 13 October 2007 08:31, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
>> In the meantime, I've created a threading branch here:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/perl/modperl/branches/threading
>>
>> And I've applied this change (rev 584377) as the first one in hopefully
>> m
Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
> Torsten Foertsch wrote:
>> On Wednesday 17 October 2007 18:10, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
>>> Yeah, I know. If you ask me, this pnotes behaviour is wrong, but we chose
>>> to keep it around for historical reasons. It's not a bug if it's documented
>> It is a bug. If it i
Torsten Foertsch wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 October 2007 18:10, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
>> Yeah, I know. If you ask me, this pnotes behaviour is wrong, but we chose
>> to keep it around for historical reasons. It's not a bug if it's documented
>
> It is a bug. If it is documented it is a docum
On Wednesday 17 October 2007 18:10, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
> Yeah, I know. If you ask me, this pnotes behaviour is wrong, but we chose
> to keep it around for historical reasons. It's not a bug if it's documented
It is a bug. If it is documented it is a documented bug. I was hit by it once
a
Geoffrey Young wrote:
> heh, didn't this just come up?
It sure did!
> gozer: I did find the documentation, and I posted it to the rt ticket.
I knew it existed somewhere, thanks.
> I guess we don't have a historical way of managing rt tickets, but I'm
> tempted to resolve this one as "rejected"
heh, didn't this just come up?
:)
gozer: I did find the documentation, and I posted it to the rt ticket.
I guess we don't have a historical way of managing rt tickets, but I'm
tempted to resolve this one as "rejected" (though the thought of
rejecting tim isn't a pleasant one ;)
--Geoff
---
