Hi Amos,
At 05:34 09/04/2008, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> > - Windows port: Released name of Longhorn Server is Windows Server
>> 2008
>>
>> This one I consider one of the cleanup patches (already voted not to go
>> back).
>> But if we get two votes for it. Fine, its small enough code change.
>
> I
Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
The following is the list of patches I think should get backported to
3.0:
- The fix for Bug #2001 after it's been verified proper with ICAP and
large responses.. Backport mailed to squid-dev and in my bzr repository.
Seems to pass all tests fine.
Done.
- Removed exe
Amos Jeffries wrote:
Tsantilas Christos wrote:
Alex Rousskov wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 17:04 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
tis 2008-04-08 klockan 13:23 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
+1. I'm just waiting on you all to agree that its tested enough. If
you
want to do the merge yourself Henrik
Tsantilas Christos wrote:
Alex Rousskov wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 17:04 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
tis 2008-04-08 klockan 13:23 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
+1. I'm just waiting on you all to agree that its tested enough. If you
want to do the merge yourself Henrik, I'm okay with that.
> tis 2008-04-08 klockan 13:23 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
>
>> Is there a security problem with them being set?
>> IMO its just a cleanup otherwise (already voted those not to go back).
>
> It's not even a source change, just a bzr attributes cleanup. But the
> current situation may confuse some un
Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 17:04 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>> tis 2008-04-08 klockan 13:23 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
>>
>>> +1. I'm just waiting on you all to agree that its tested enough. If you
>>> want to do the merge yourself Henrik, I'm okay with that.
>> Doesn't matter
On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 17:04 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> tis 2008-04-08 klockan 13:23 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
>
> > +1. I'm just waiting on you all to agree that its tested enough. If you
> > want to do the merge yourself Henrik, I'm okay with that.
>
> Doesn't matter for me who merges the
tis 2008-04-08 klockan 13:23 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
> +1. I'm just waiting on you all to agree that its tested enough. If you
> want to do the merge yourself Henrik, I'm okay with that.
Doesn't matter for me who merges the backport. It's a trivial bzr merge
with the backport already done..
>
tis 2008-04-08 klockan 13:23 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
> Is there a security problem with them being set?
> IMO its just a cleanup otherwise (already voted those not to go back).
It's not even a source change, just a bzr attributes cleanup. But the
current situation may confuse some unexperience
> The following is the list of patches I think should get backported to
> 3.0:
>
> - The fix for Bug #2001 after it's been verified proper with ICAP and
> large responses.. Backport mailed to squid-dev and in my bzr repository.
> Seems to pass all tests fine.
+1. I'm just waiting on you all to agr
The following is the list of patches I think should get backported to
3.0:
- The fix for Bug #2001 after it's been verified proper with ICAP and
large responses.. Backport mailed to squid-dev and in my bzr repository.
Seems to pass all tests fine.
- Removed execute bit from various non-executable
11 matches
Mail list logo
