You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com> on 2011/12/03 09:27:37 UTC

Re: svn commit: r1209777 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/include: ap_mmn.h http_log.h

On 2 Dec 2011, at 23:19, sf@apache.org wrote:

> Modified:
>    httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/include/ap_mmn.h
>    httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/include/http_log.h
> 
[...]

> + * 20111202.1 (2.5.0-dev)  add APLOGNO()

2.4 or 2.5?

Isn't this incompatible with being in a near-release beta state?
Could certainly use a couple of test releases before being
set in stone!

-- 
Nick Kew

Re: svn commit: r1209777 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/include: ap_mmn.h http_log.h

Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.

On Saturday 03 December 2011, Nick Kew wrote:
> On 2 Dec 2011, at 23:19, sf@apache.org wrote:
> > Modified:
> >    httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/include/ap_mmn.h
> >    httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/include/http_log.h
> 
> [...]
> 
> > + * 20111202.1 (2.5.0-dev)  add APLOGNO()
> 
> 2.4 or 2.5?

Changed it to 2.4. I guess we still need to update the comments in the 
trunk and 2.4.x ap_mmn.h files after the dust has settled. I guess the 
trunk file should get the history of 2.4.x, because that's what module 
authors need to take into account.

> 
> Isn't this incompatible with being in a near-release beta state?
> Could certainly use a couple of test releases before being
> set in stone!

There is no actual code change. Only a lot of strings added to error 
messages.

But I would be fine with adding it later, too. Can some other people 
please voice their opinions?