You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by rj...@apache.org on 2009/09/16 13:19:52 UTC
svn commit: r815726 - /tomcat/native/branches/1.1.x/STATUS.txt
Author: rjung
Date: Wed Sep 16 11:19:51 2009
New Revision: 815726
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=815726&view=rev
Log:
Recover tcnative STATUS file removed during svn reorg.
See also http://marc.info/?t=124807938100006&r=1&w=2
Added:
tomcat/native/branches/1.1.x/STATUS.txt
- copied unchanged from r802220, tomcat/connectors/branches/native/1.1.x/STATUS.txt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: tcnative 1.1.x CTR or RTC
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
On 16/09/09 13:23, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Is tcnative 1.1.x CTR or RTC?
>
CTR, with standard branch exceptional clause:
"No new features, no API changes."
>
> There are a couple of simple fixes sitting in there and waiting for a
> vote, but if we are still RTC, I would like to apply them before 1.1.17.
Sure, just commit them if they don't cause regression.
I also have one nasty OpenSSL/windows fix, and would like to
push for a 1.1.17 ASAP.
Regards
--
^TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: tcnative 1.1.x CTR or RTC
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 16.09.2009 13:49, Mark Thomas wrote:
> Rainer Jung wrote:
>> Is tcnative 1.1.x CTR or RTC?
>
> I thought CTR - if that was wrong then I apologise.
No need.
>> We once had a status file, which was lost during the svn reorg. I
>> recovered it.
>
> Thanks. Sorry for that.
Thanks for doing the reorg work!
>> There are a couple of simple fixes sitting in there and waiting for a
>> vote, but if we are still RTC, I would like to apply them before 1.1.17.
>> I was just wondering because of Marks backports yesterday.
>
> Time to check the archives. If it is RTC I'll revert my back ports and
> propose any that don't already have proposals.
Hmmm, maybe time for Mladen or Jean-Frederic to remind us? I guess the
existence of a status file indicates we had RTC in mind.
Regards,
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: tcnative 1.1.x CTR or RTC
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Rainer Jung wrote:
> Is tcnative 1.1.x CTR or RTC?
I thought CTR - if that was wrong then I apologise.
> We once had a status file, which was lost during the svn reorg. I
> recovered it.
Thanks. Sorry for that.
> There are a couple of simple fixes sitting in there and waiting for a
> vote, but if we are still RTC, I would like to apply them before 1.1.17.
> I was just wondering because of Marks backports yesterday.
Time to check the archives. If it is RTC I'll revert my back ports and
propose any that don't already have proposals.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
tcnative 1.1.x CTR or RTC
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Is tcnative 1.1.x CTR or RTC?
We once had a status file, which was lost during the svn reorg. I
recovered it.
There are a couple of simple fixes sitting in there and waiting for a
vote, but if we are still RTC, I would like to apply them before 1.1.17.
I was just wondering because of Marks backports yesterday.
Regards,
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org