So when we can start to VOTE for this now ?
bye
Norman
Am Mittwoch, den 31.05.2006, 14:13 +0200 schrieb Norman Maurer:
Ok i will merge it in the branch!
Am Mittwoch, den 31.05.2006, 08:12 -0400 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
Norman Maurer wrote:
I want also rename the AddHandler and
On 6/2/06, Norman Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So when we can start to VOTE for this now ?
I would just commit. It's backwards compatible, discussed several
days ago with consensus of what we'd change, go for it! We can always
revert if people have an issue.
--
Serge Knystautas
Lokitech
The asking vor a VOTE was not related for my commits. Allready done the
commits.
I asked for a VOTE for james-2.3a4 .
bye
Norman
Am Freitag, den 02.06.2006, 09:16 -0400 schrieb Serge Knystautas:
On 6/2/06, Norman Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So when we can start to VOTE for this now ?
Serge Knystautas wrote:
On 6/2/06, Norman Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So when we can start to VOTE for this now ?
I would just commit. It's backwards compatible, discussed several
days ago with consensus of what we'd change, go for it! We can always
revert if people have an issue.
I
I think he's referring to the VOTE for publishing a new release ;-)
I was under the impression that Noel was working on 2.3.0b1 release
a day or two ago.
Was waiting for a few commits that people said were coming. We seem to be
done, yes?
I'll tag and build the current v2.3 branch as
Norman Maurer wrote:
I want also rename the AddHandler and SetHandler before release 2.3.
Since it is just a rename, and since you added a replacement using the old
name to keep existing configurations from breaking, that seems reasonable to
me.
--- Noel
Ok i will merge it in the branch!
Am Mittwoch, den 31.05.2006, 08:12 -0400 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
Norman Maurer wrote:
I want also rename the AddHandler and SetHandler before release 2.3.
Since it is just a rename, and since you added a replacement using the old
name to keep existing
when we want to release 2.3a4 ?
I think that I lost track of where we were with that last week.
After fixing JAMES-512 ?
I haven't caught up on this afternoon's e-mail regarding it, but IF we have
a good fix for it, let's put it in and cut 2.3.0a4. I can do that now.
What is the consensus on
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
What is the consensus on the JAMES-512 status?
I believe that we all agree that the fix is to remove the stream cache, and
to make sure that streams are properly closed by the code acquiring them in
JAMES.
--- Noel
Norman Maurer wrote:
Hi guys,
when we want to release 2.3a4 ?
+1 as soon as possible
After fixing JAMES-512 ?
don't care too much.
Better if fixed, but better to have a a4 soon.
Stefano
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Norman Maurer wrote:
Hi guys,
when we want to release 2.3a4 ?
I don't know if we all agreed on a beta1 - anyway I uploaded the
current 2.3 branch to minotaur, but refrained to post about it because
critical JAMES-512 popped up.
+1 as soon as possible
After
I'm +1 for fixing first, then releasing.
Yes, we had agreed on a beta 1, IIRC. I'm going to try to get Stefano's
patch merged in tonight and then go to sleep. Will check e-mail in the
morning, and then during the day if I have access from the site. Else
tomorrow night.
--- Noel
I'm going to try to get Stefano's patch merged in tonight
Done, for both branches. Normally, I'd test first, but if necessary we can
revert to r410395, even if it is only a partial fix.
By the way, Stefano did the harder of the fixes, but possibly the most
useful, since it will still force
13 matches
Mail list logo
