Sure; it might be quicker to use LD_LIBRARY_PATH to run the 1.3.12
testall testpoll against apr 1.3.9's libapr before sorting through
individual commits.
The instant I read this, I realized my shell likely had LD_LIBRARY_PATH set.
Sure enough, it was. And, it was pointing to a path that had a
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
See http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ for the candidate distribution
files (no Windows source yet -- Bill, is it correct that the one
generated by release.sh is not used?).
The primary changes since apr-1.3.9 are several
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 11:04 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 2/6/2010 7:47 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
See http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ for the candidate distribution
files (no Windows source yet -- Bill, is it correct that the one
generated by release.sh is not used?).
For me it builds still fine like 1.3.11 on Win7.
(I'd add another step 0 to tagroll: make sure it still builds on Windows)
Mario
Ditto on XP
All tests pass
builds fine with httpd 2.2.14 (not that I expected it wouldn't)
+1
Gregg
Mario Brandt wrote:
For me it builds still fine like 1.3.11 on Win7.
(I'd add another step 0 to tagroll: make sure it still builds on Windows)
Mario
[+1] Release apr-1.3.11
Tossing my peanut in the +1 bucket.
testlib: testall.exe - 0 error(s), 1 warning(s)
testdll: testall.exe - 0 error(s), 1 warning(s)
WinXP VS6 9 and builds well in and out of httpd
Gregg
Jeff Trawick wrote:
See http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ for the candidate
Jeff Trawick wrote:
See http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ for the candidate distribution
files (no Windows source yet -- Bill, is it correct that the one
generated by release.sh is not used?).
The primary changes since apr-1.3.9 are several fixes for the Solaris
platform.
I think changes
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
See http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ for the candidate distribution
files (no Windows source yet -- Bill, is it correct that the one
generated by release.sh is not used?).
The primary changes since
Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
As for 1.3.11, I'm happy to start over after apr_hints.m4 is fixed or
proceed with what we have now, as desired.
I committed the 1-character change that got my system working, but I
couldn't get it to misbehave anywhere else.
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
As for 1.3.11, I'm happy to start over after apr_hints.m4 is fixed or
proceed with what we have now, as desired.
I committed the 1-character change that got
See http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ for the candidate distribution
files (no Windows source yet -- Bill, is it correct that the one
generated by release.sh is not used?).
The primary changes since apr-1.3.9 are several fixes for the Solaris platform.
+/-1
[ ] Release apr-1.3.12
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
See http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ for the candidate distribution
files (no Windows source yet -- Bill, is it correct that the one
generated by release.sh is not used?).
The primary changes since apr-1.3.9 are several
On 2/6/2010 7:47 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
See http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ for the candidate distribution
files (no Windows source yet -- Bill, is it correct that the one
generated by release.sh is not used?).
Correct, it's used verbatim, with the addition of .mak files which had
changed
See http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ for the candidate distribution
files (no Windows source yet -- Bill, is it correct that the one
generated by release.sh is not used?).
The primary changes since apr-1.3.9 are several fixes for the Solaris platform.
+/-1
[ ] Release apr-1.3.11
[x] Release apr-1.3.11
non-binding +1
builds fine for me on Win7 with VS9 Express
Mario
On Tuesday 26 January 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Pushing to the mirrors now.
It seems to be on the mirrors by now. Time to update the website?
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
Jeff Trawick schrieb:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org wrote:
BTW. while I was on that found that in httpd's roll.sh the gpg signing
part looks wrong to me - therefore I kept the
Hi all,
Jeff Trawick schrieb:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org wrote:
BTW. while I was on that found that in httpd's roll.sh the gpg signing
part looks wrong to me - therefore I kept the way how the signing user
is handled same as was before in apr's release.h;
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Jeff.
Jeff Trawick schrieb:
(I hope this doesn't start another long hash format thread) perhaps
Guenter would want to update the apr roll script (if there is one) to
massage the md5 sums as appropriate for future
On 1/21/2010 10:44 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Hi folks,
There is a new candidate at the usual location,
http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ for an apr 1.4.2 release. The only
major delta from what the overwhelmingly positive 1.4.1 candidate is
reverting the breaking API change in 1.3.9
non-binding +1 for release, tested on Win7 VC2008
Mario
P.S.: Eric thank you for the mail hint ;-)
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:44 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
+/-1
[ ] Release apr-1.4.2
Hi Jeff.
Jeff Trawick schrieb:
(I hope this doesn't start another long hash format thread) perhaps
Guenter would want to update the apr roll script (if there is one) to
massage the md5 sums as appropriate for future releases :)
apr-1.4.2.tar.bz2: 4B 00 E8 F7 0C 06 78 93 D0 75 57 79 62 65 6B
Guenter Knauf schrieb:
BTW. while I was on that found that in httpd's roll.sh the gpg signing
part looks wrong to me - therefore I kept the way how the signing user
is handled same as was before in apr's release.h; but I believe it
should be fixed for httpd's roll.sh:
--- roll.sh.orig
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:44 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Hi folks,
There is a new candidate at the usual location,
http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ for an apr 1.4.2 release.
(I hope this doesn't start another long hash format thread) perhaps
Guenter would want to update
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:44 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Hi folks,
There is a new candidate at the usual location,
http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ for an apr 1.4.2 release. The only
major delta from what the overwhelmingly positive 1.4.1 candidate is
reverting the
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:44 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
+/-1
[ ] Release apr-1.4.2
non-binding +1 for release, tested on AIX 6.1* (32/64), HP-PARISC
(32), HP/IA64 (32/64) and Linux/PPC (32/64)
(* = no regression)
--
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com
that svn reported, which
scuttled the earlier attempt.
+/-1
[ ] Release apr-1.4.2
your votes please? Voting runs the normal 72 hrs, I'll have the
Windows .zip here late this afternoon, and if the vote has passed
by Sunday eve it's ready to announce on Monday morning.
Thanks testers
.
+/-1
[ ] Release apr-1.4.2
your votes please? Voting runs the normal 72 hrs, I'll have the
Windows .zip here late this afternoon, and if the vote has passed
by Sunday eve it's ready to announce on Monday morning.
Thanks testers!
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
There is a new candidate at the usual location,
+/-1
[ ] Release apr-1.4.2
+1 non-binding
No noticed regressions
A little curious as to why testapp.exe fails, but this happened in 1.4.1
as well. It runs from command line, does nothing (?) and quietly exits.
]] William A. Rowe Jr.
I realise I'm somewhat late for the party here.
| Correct, it is internally labeled 1.4.0-dev. It is not externally (plainly
| visible to the user) as an apr-dev. The artifact is
httpd-2.3.4-alpha-deps.tar
|
| from the dev snapshot version bundled with httpd
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Branko Čibej wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Should apr_initialize and friends be programmed to go 'bang' and drop out
with a stderr emit, if compiled against a
Branko Čibej wrote:
(And maybe it's just me, but I prefer debugging a consistent abort on
start-up than a random abort because of ABI mismatch).
True :)
backwards compatibility with those snapshots as required by the
versioning guidelines, http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html?
Please vote:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
ensure future APR/APR-util releases maintain source and binary
backwards compatibility with those snapshots as required by the
versioning guidelines, http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html?
Please vote:
[ ] Yes
[X] No
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 03:05:29PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
[ ] Yes
[X] No
I vote no: what other ASF projects ship has no bearing on API
commitments made by the APR project.
Regards, Joe
On 15 Dec 2009, at 15:05, Joe Orton wrote:
Please vote:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[x] No
The httpd distros (at least those with package managers) have been
weaned off bundling APR. Time for httpd itself to catch up.
In any case, this is not the responsibility of APR.
--
Nick Kew
ensure future APR/APR-util releases maintain source and binary
backwards compatibility with those snapshots as required by the
versioning guidelines, http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html?
Please vote:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[x] No
Thanks,
Paul
and binary
backwards compatibility with those snapshots as required by the
versioning guidelines, http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html?
Please vote:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
By the way, if the answer turns out to be no, then we can do the
cryptoapi changes that were discussed in another thread
Branko Čibej wrote:
By the way, if the answer turns out to be no, then we can do the
cryptoapi changes that were discussed in another thread for 1.4; and I
was made aware of a patch to make pools friendlier to long-lived
multithreaded applications which would be a nice-to-have (conceptually)
releases maintain source and binary
backwards compatibility with those snapshots as required by the
versioning guidelines, http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html?
Please vote:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[X] No
Regards
Rüdiger
words,
should we ensure future APR/APR-util releases maintain source and binary
backwards compatibility with those snapshots as required by the
versioning guidelines, http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html?
Please vote:
[ ] Yes
[X] No
You cannot ethically vote to release ASF software
words,
should we ensure future APR/APR-util releases maintain source and binary
backwards compatibility with those snapshots as required by the
versioning guidelines, http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html?
Please vote:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[x] No
You cannot ethically vote to release ASF
Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 03:05:29PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
[ ] Yes
[X] No
I vote no: what other ASF projects ship has no bearing on API
commitments made by the APR project.
You cannot ethically vote to release ASF software at one project and
declare it not-released
vote:
[ ] Yes
[X] No
You cannot ethically vote to release ASF software at one project and
declare it not-released at another project. That slight of hand renders
your vote invalid.
We disagree on whether or not the httpd 2.3.4 prereqs tarball
constitutes an APR release. Leave
Joe Orton wrote:
I am asking people to vote on whether the APR project considers that
release of the ASF to be significant for APR library versioning
purposes. That is a decision which can be made by the APR project, as
we agreed in the other thread.
And I've spelled out why
in *most* respects, e.g. DTRACE maintainer macros
excepted, and this becomes a silly-vote thread of the people who had
championed the release.
You asked, and I answered, that it's perfectly sane to offer some
snapshots as the reference of the perhaps-to-be-released API in our
/dev/dist/ area, etc
I'm not going to cast a vote here because I think the vote is a)
premature, b) not carried out in the proper forum.
If we assume that any part of APR that's bundled with httpd does not
constitute an APR release -- and note that we're talking about related
projects within the ASF, not some random
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Branko Čibej br...@xbc.nu wrote:
I'm not going to cast a vote here because I think the vote is a)
premature, b) not carried out in the proper forum.
If we assume that any part of APR that's bundled with httpd does not
constitute an APR release -- and note
Paul Querna wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Branko Čibej br...@xbc.nu wrote:
Specifically: if I build and install the APR from that bespoke httpd
tarball, what does apr-1-config --version say?
* If the answer is 1.4.0, the user will believe they just installed
an APR
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Branko Čibej br...@xbc.nu wrote:
Specifically: if I build and install the APR from that bespoke httpd
tarball, what does apr-1-config --version say?
* If the answer is 1.4.0, the user will believe
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Unfortunately the APR versioning rules do not tell the developer not to
compile
against or link to -dev, while this gives the user no indication of what they
are doing to their APR installation.
in that, you're correct. One would expect that developers do
source and binary
backwards compatibility with those snapshots as required by the
versioning guidelines, http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html?
Please vote:
[X] No
Gün.
Branko Čibej wrote:
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Unfortunately the APR versioning rules do not tell the developer not to
compile
against or link to -dev, while this gives the user no indication of what they
are doing to their APR installation.
in that, you're correct. One would expect
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Branko Čibej wrote:
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Unfortunately the APR versioning rules do not tell the developer not to
compile
against or link to -dev, while this gives the user no indication of what
they
are
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Branko Čibej wrote:
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Unfortunately the APR versioning rules do not tell the developer not to
compile
against or link to -dev, while this gives the user no indication of what
they
are doing to their APR installation.
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 15:05 +, Joe Orton wrote:
Should the APR project treat those snapshots as releases for
versioning purposes?
Without actually casting a vote (because doing so seems to be
contentious in itself), I would say no. Generally speaking, APR folks
don't have control over what
Paul Querna wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Branko Čibej wrote:
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Unfortunately the APR versioning rules do not tell the developer not to
compile
against or link to -dev, while this gives the
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
[You are wrong, FWIW. BadCA was one of the first adopters of the original
crypto interfaces. I don't know that it was ported to the current iteration
of the crypto interface.]
Branko Čibej wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Should apr_initialize and friends be programmed to go 'bang' and drop out
with a stderr emit, if compiled against a x.y.0-dev release and run against
x.y.*[1-9]? Or, at
On Dec 12, 2009, at 10:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Sander Temme wrote:
But do you agree that we should support %lld and that inside the if
statement starting line 832 of apr_snprintf.c is a good spot to set var_type
= IS_QUAD?
exactly, there is nothing appropriate about a
Sander Temme wrote:
Unless my caffeine-starved brain is reading this wrong, should we put in a
special case in the 'l' modifier (line 832) that catches 'll' and sets the
variable type to IS_QUAD?
In any case, if sizeof(long long) == sizeof(long) == sizeof(int)
we should always be respecting
On Dec 12, 2009, at 4:07 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Sander Temme wrote:
Unless my caffeine-starved brain is reading this wrong, should we put in a
special case in the 'l' modifier (line 832) that catches 'll' and sets the
variable type to IS_QUAD?
In any case, if sizeof(long long)
Sander Temme wrote:
On Dec 12, 2009, at 4:07 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Sander Temme wrote:
Unless my caffeine-starved brain is reading this wrong, should we put in a
special case in the 'l' modifier (line 832) that catches 'll' and sets the
variable type to IS_QUAD?
In any case, if
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:27 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Hi folks,
the usual location, http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ now contains
a candidate for apr 1.4.1 release. The only delta from what the
httpd project just shipped for 1.4.0-dev, besides some whitespace
and
was not included in the apr project like
it is in the libapr project.
Same results for testlib as testdll per my first email so my non-binding
vote is still +1
--- apr/apr/branches/1.4.x/apr.dsp 821199
+++ apr/apr/branches/1.4.x/apr.dsp Working
@@ -396,6 +396,10 @@
# End Source File
# Begin
as I have a few minutes
to throw together the .mak objects.
Not sure How I'd vote given what's below and the fact that I haven no cycles to
spend.
Mac OS X 10.6.2 Snow Leopard:
Darwin legadema.sandla.org 10.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.2.0: Tue Nov 3
10:37:10 PST 2009; root:xnu-1486.2.11~1
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Sander Temme san...@temme.net wrote:
Not sure How I'd vote given what's below and the fact that I haven no cycles
to spend.
Mac OS X 10.6.2 Snow Leopard:
Darwin legadema.sandla.org 10.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.2.0: Tue Nov 3
10:37:10 PST 2009
On 08.12.2009 06:27, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Hi folks,
the usual location, http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ now contains
a candidate for apr 1.4.1 release. The only delta from what the
httpd project just shipped for 1.4.0-dev, besides some whitespace
and docs cleanup, is Branko's fix for
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Hi folks,
+/-1
[ ] Release apr-1.4.1
your votes please? Voting runs the normal 72 hrs, and a windows
Here's my official unofficial non-binding +1
this was a nice quiet build on VC9Express/Vista
VC6 SP6 SDK 2k3 R2 WinXP
VC9 Express Express SDK WinXP Vista
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:27 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Hi folks,
the usual location, http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ now contains
a candidate for apr 1.4.1 release. The only delta from what the
httpd project just shipped for 1.4.0-dev, besides some whitespace
and
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 07:48:02PM -0600, William Rowe wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
1) the httpd project cannot force the APR project to commit to API
stability by distributing a snapshot of the APR 1.4 branch. Why on
earth would that be the case? The only time the APR project commits to
Joe Orton wrote:
This is all fine and good but I don't see any implication above that the
APR project must enforce its versioning rules on anything other than
releases *it voted on* - i.e. releases of APR, rather than releases of
httpd.
I'm more than a bit confused. Does it matter if
Hi folks,
the usual location, http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ now contains
a candidate for apr 1.4.1 release. The only delta from what the
httpd project just shipped for 1.4.0-dev, besides some whitespace
and docs cleanup, is Branko's fix for win32 directory errors. If
one reads that as a bug
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 6:21 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Remember your -deps vote is to approve the release of apr 1.4.0-dev and the
apr-util 1.4.0 dev, and the API
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 6:21 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Remember your -deps vote is to approve the release of apr 1.4.0-dev and the
apr-util 1.4.0
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
As for broken versioning rules, please take that to APR.
Perhaps in retrospect, APR would consider an even/odds approach as httpd
has for adding (even eliminating) interfaces during a development cycle.
IMO the
Joe Orton wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 05:21:09PM -0600, William Rowe wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
Vote Results:
+1 (binding): Sander Temme, Paul Querna, Joe Orton, Niklas Edmundsson,
+1: Gregg Smith
+/-0: Rainer Jung
-1: William A. Rowe, Jr.
Vote passes.
I'm sorry. I
Paul Querna wrote:
I don't agree that we can't release a bundled unreleased version of
APR, we did this for many versions of httpd 2.0.x and 2.1.x. It
definitely isn't preferred, but that's the APR project's problem.
Look, your argument simply doesn't fly.
In httpd 2.0 timeframe we were
Gregg L. Smith wrote:
Gregg L. Smith wrote:
Sorry bout that,
I always try first with VS6 SP6 SDK 2003R2
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Gregg L. Smith wrote:
Generating Code...
socket_util.c
E:\build\httpd-2.3.3-alpha\srclib\apr\network_io\unix\socket_util.c(21)
: error C2373:
Note to selves;
Original Message
Subject: Re: [VOTE] release 2.3.3 as alpha
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:42:16 -0800
From: Paul Querna p...@querna.org
Reply-To: d...@httpd.apache.org
To: d...@httpd.apache.org
References: 4239a432091154o2cdb881l33ff8172cbd28...@mail.gmail.com
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fmwrote:
Hi
Graham,
Is you key in this file: http://www.apache.org/dist/apr/KEYS
--
Bojan
On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 02:08 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
I thought it was, but no - it is now.
Thanks!
--
Bojan
Graham Leggett wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Please wait another 24 hours with the announcement, but put the
release in the dist dir shortly. This gives the mirrors time to catch up
until you announce.
The new release is in the dist directory now, will make the announcement
tomorrow
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Based on past commits, the files to change are as follows, is this correct?
Yes...
M dist/Announcement1.3.html
M dist/README.html
M dist/Announcement1.3.txt
M dist/HEADER.html
commit these now, then in /www/www.apache.org/dist/apr/ do an
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 3:58 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
87-194-125-14:apr-site-trunk minfrin$ svn status
M xdocs/download.xml
M xdocs/index.xml
M docs/index.html
M docs/download.html
M doap.rdf
Commit these tomorrow, an hour before you want
Votes open for 48 hours or until we register sufficient
+1's for release.
Compiles ok with SunCC on Solaris9/Sparc and Solaris10/X86. I get one IPv6
related test failure in testsockets, but that is not a regression (happens
with 1.3.8, too) and could be due to the way my test machines are set
On 22.09.2009 00:25, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I have rolled a candidate of apr v1.3.9 and propose it for release,
available here:
http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/apr/
It specifically fixes this, a showstopper for httpd:
*) Fix error handling in the Solaris pollset support
+1
On Sep 21, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I have rolled a candidate of apr v1.3.9 and propose it for release,
available here:
http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/apr/
It specifically fixes this, a showstopper for httpd:
*) Fix error handling in the Solaris pollset
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Hi all,
I have rolled a candidate of apr v1.3.9 and propose it for release,
available here:
http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/apr/http://people.apache.org/%7Eminfrin/apr/
+1
(Mac OS X 10.5.8 on x86, 32-bit testing
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Hi all,
I have rolled a candidate of apr v1.3.9 and propose it for release,
available here:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Hi all,
I have rolled a candidate of apr v1.3.9 and propose it for
Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I have rolled a candidate of apr v1.3.9 and propose it for release,
available here:
http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/apr/
+1: OpenSolaris (SunCC and gcc), macosx (gcc).
--
Nick Kew
On 09/22/2009 12:25 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I have rolled a candidate of apr v1.3.9 and propose it for release,
available here:
http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/apr/
It specifically fixes this, a showstopper for httpd:
*) Fix error handling in the Solaris pollset
Hi all,
I have rolled a candidate of apr v1.3.9 and propose it for release,
available here:
http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/apr/
It specifically fixes this, a showstopper for httpd:
*) Fix error handling in the Solaris pollset support (Event Port backend).
PR 47645. [Jeff Trawick]
Graham Leggett wrote:
I have rolled a candidate of apr v1.3.9 and propose it for release,
available here:
http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/apr/
It specifically fixes this, a showstopper for httpd:
*) Fix error handling in the Solaris pollset support (Event Port backend).
PR
Votes open for 48 hours...
+1
'make check' clean on Ubuntu 8.04 64-bit using both GCC 4.3.1 and
Intel 10.1 compilers.
- Rhys
Builds clean on OSX 10.6, but testfmt fails as I described earlier:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/apr-dev/200909.mbox/b4e5ce320909151403j634c1b7egf048b5ec93d15...@mail.gmail.com
Neil
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Graham Leggett wrote:
I
Is this vote over or should we wait for further votes?
Please find the current results below
On 08/05/2009 04:54 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please vote for your choice.
[ ] apr 2.0 should support an incomplete ldap interface
(revert r799085 for good)
0
[ ] apr 2.0 should
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Is this vote over or should we wait for further votes?
Please find the current results below
The vote is over. We will revert, and whenever anyone feels like
rolling APR 2.0, they may simply svn rm apr/ldap if it has not been
completed.
I'm very glad that it attracted
601 - 700 of 1267 matches
Mail list logo
