You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2006/11/08 14:34:27 UTC
Time for 2.2.4?
Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
I offer to be RM.
Re: Time for 2.2.4?
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
> start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
I would like to propose the backport of proxy alternate
is_socket_connected. This is IMHO very crucial
for AJP to work. Without that the loadbalancer is
unusable for most platforms.
> I offer to be RM.
>
+1
Regards,
Mladen.
Re: Time for 2.2.4?
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
I'd be willing to test the tarballs on win x64 (32-bit and 64-bit) and on
vista (32-bit).
Re: Time for 2.2.4?
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 08:34:27 -0500
Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
> start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
> I offer to be RM.
Fairy nuff. I have some significant updates I'd like to add
(stop mod_dbd generating bogus errors when unconfigured),
but I guess that can wait for 2.2.5 if necessary.
I'll try and find time to review other people's STATUS entries:-)
And my comment on the PCRE thing: since it's not a regression
from what we have already, you can take it as a -1 vote, not veto.
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/
Re: Time for 2.2.4?
Posted by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org>.
On Nov 8, 2006, at 5:34 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
> start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
> I offer to be RM.
I'll put your tarball code up on ajax and people if Joe doesn't beat
me to it.
S.
--
sctemme@apache.org http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
Re: Time for 2.2.4?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
> start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
> I offer to be RM.
Yes - we need to, +1, and I'd offered to RM APR... we've been whittling
down the apr bug list (primarily platform-by-platform quirks.) I can have
APR tarball to vote on this friday (discuss @ APR) if you would like to
roll with the next APR bump.
Re: Time for 1.2.8, was Re: Time for 2.2.4?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Scroll back a half hour :)
Seriously - do folks need the extra day - or does anyone object to Friday
midday?
Paul Querna wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
>> start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
>> I offer to be RM.
>
> I think we should start thinking about it too. I think we should also
> consider requesting that APR{,-Util} 1.2.8 gets done by the APR
> developers...
>
> With the APR hat on, I volunteer to RM a 1.2.x release of APR and
> APR-Util. How does this Saturday as a release cut time sound for everyone?
>
> -Paul
>
>
> .
>
Re: Time for 1.2.8, was Re: Time for 2.2.4?
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
while we are on the subject to of apr...
May i ask why the lib's have a 1 appended to it in 2.2.x? Most (read nearly
all) 3rd party modules link to the old filename.
Jorge
On 11/8/06, Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com> wrote:
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
> > start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
> > I offer to be RM.
>
> I think we should start thinking about it too. I think we should also
> consider requesting that APR{,-Util} 1.2.8 gets done by the APR
> developers...
>
> With the APR hat on, I volunteer to RM a 1.2.x release of APR and
> APR-Util. How does this Saturday as a release cut time sound for
> everyone?
>
> -Paul
>
>
--
~Jorge
Re: Time for 1.2.8, was Re: Time for 2.2.4?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Scroll back a half hour :)
Seriously - do folks need the extra day - or does anyone object to Friday
midday?
Paul Querna wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
>> start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
>> I offer to be RM.
>
> I think we should start thinking about it too. I think we should also
> consider requesting that APR{,-Util} 1.2.8 gets done by the APR
> developers...
>
> With the APR hat on, I volunteer to RM a 1.2.x release of APR and
> APR-Util. How does this Saturday as a release cut time sound for everyone?
>
> -Paul
>
>
> .
>
Time for 1.2.8, was Re: Time for 2.2.4?
Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
> start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
> I offer to be RM.
I think we should start thinking about it too. I think we should also
consider requesting that APR{,-Util} 1.2.8 gets done by the APR
developers...
With the APR hat on, I volunteer to RM a 1.2.x release of APR and
APR-Util. How does this Saturday as a release cut time sound for everyone?
-Paul
Time for 1.2.8, was Re: Time for 2.2.4?
Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
> start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
> I offer to be RM.
I think we should start thinking about it too. I think we should also
consider requesting that APR{,-Util} 1.2.8 gets done by the APR
developers...
With the APR hat on, I volunteer to RM a 1.2.x release of APR and
APR-Util. How does this Saturday as a release cut time sound for everyone?
-Paul