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 2004/02/18 18:34:44 UTC
Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 "soonish".
> Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
> also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49
aswell?
Sander
Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Sander Striker wrote:
> In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49
> aswell?
+1, but let's make sure to get the mod_usertrack fix finally committed.
Jim already committed it to 1.3.x as far as I know, and there's no reason
not to commit it to 2.0.x and 2.1.x except I just kept forgetting to do
so.
--Cliff
Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
We have a showstopper, don't we?
On Feb 18, 2004, at 12:34 PM, Sander Striker wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 "soonish".
>> Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
>> also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
>
> In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49
> aswell?
>
> Sander
>
>
--
=======================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson