You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> on 2002/09/19 11:58:19 UTC
Moving on to 2.0.42
Hi,
Since dav is broken in 2.0.41, -1 on GA.
I'd like to move to 2.0.42 right away and roll that.
2.0.42 would have only one thing different from
2.0.41 and that is the mod_dav fix that was committed.
Ofcourse this also is a good oppurtunity to fix
CHANGES for 2.0.42... ;)
Thoughts or objections? If not, I'm going to move
forward on the .42 T&R.
Sander
Re: Moving on to 2.0.42
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
"Sander Striker" <st...@apache.org> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Since dav is broken in 2.0.41, -1 on GA.
>
> I'd like to move to 2.0.42 right away and roll that.
> 2.0.42 would have only one thing different from
> 2.0.41 and that is the mod_dav fix that was committed.
>
> Ofcourse this also is a good oppurtunity to fix
> CHANGES for 2.0.42... ;)
>
> Thoughts or objections? If not, I'm going to move
> forward on the .42 T&R.
+1
Your efforts are appreciated.
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: Moving on to 2.0.42
Posted by gr...@apache.org.
Sander Striker wrote:
>
> I'd like to move to 2.0.42 right away and roll that.
> 2.0.42 would have only one thing different from
> 2.0.41 and that is the mod_dav fix that was committed.
It's runing live on daedalus and looks fine.
> Thoughts or objections?
Thanks for all your RM efforts.
Greg
Re: Moving on to 2.0.42
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 11:58:19AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since dav is broken in 2.0.41, -1 on GA.
Heh. That is definitely overstating the problem. Considering that the DAV
implementation went through the entire WebDAV Interop last week without a
peep about this problem, I think you can easily say it isn't "broken". More
like "there is a subtle DoS which we have fixed, so let's roll it out. oops.
gotta use a new version number."
:-)
> I'd like to move to 2.0.42 right away and roll that.
> 2.0.42 would have only one thing different from
> 2.0.41 and that is the mod_dav fix that was committed.
+1 ... I concur. And doing it this way means you can roll and release
quickly without a ton o' pain.
Thanks, Sander.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RE: Moving on to 2.0.42
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
I'll do you one better, in httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
apache_2.0.42-win32-x86-no_ssl.exe 20-Sep-2002 17:06 6.5M
apache_2.0.42-win32-x86-no_ssl.msi 20-Sep-2002 16:52 3.5M
httpd-2.0.42-alpha-win32-src.zip 19-Sep-2002 08:19 6.4M
Replete with .md5 and .pgp sums.
Thanks for all your efforts getting .42 all rolled up.
+1 here for GA release. Just move 'em from /dev/dist/ and rename
the -alpha's (you will have to edit the name in the md5 digest for .zip.)
Bill
At 07:09 AM 9/19/2002, Sander Striker wrote:
> > From: Sander Striker [mailto:striker@apache.org]
> > Sent: 19 September 2002 13:29
>
> > Thanks for the support guys. I'm in process of the T&R
> > right now. Expect it to be up on dev/dist in about 15
> > mins.
>
>Ok, the tarballs are up at http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>as usual.
>
>OtherBill, would you be so kind to create new zip files?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Sander
RE: Moving on to 2.0.42
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Sander Striker [mailto:striker@apache.org]
> Sent: 19 September 2002 13:29
> Thanks for the support guys. I'm in process of the T&R
> right now. Expect it to be up on dev/dist in about 15
> mins.
Ok, the tarballs are up at http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
as usual.
OtherBill, would you be so kind to create new zip files?
Thanks,
Sander
RE: Moving on to 2.0.42
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the support guys. I'm in process of the T&R
right now. Expect it to be up on dev/dist in about 15
mins.
Sander
RE: Moving on to 2.0.42
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
> Hi,
>
> Since dav is broken in 2.0.41, -1 on GA.
>
> I'd like to move to 2.0.42 right away and roll that.
> 2.0.42 would have only one thing different from
> 2.0.41 and that is the mod_dav fix that was committed.
>
> Ofcourse this also is a good oppurtunity to fix
> CHANGES for 2.0.42... ;)
>
> Thoughts or objections? If not, I'm going to move
> forward on the .42 T&R.
>
> Sander
>
+1
Bill