Thank you, folks. I apologize again for the embarrassing mistake.
Will be sending along the updated vote email in a few seconds.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
On 2019-01-17 12:30, Yann Ylavic wrote:
We should at the same 2.4.x state as before the release try now, I
think the script(s) can be restarted
We should at the same 2.4.x state as before the release try now, I
think the script(s) can be restarted with the correct tag/version
(2.4.38! ;) ) as if it were the first time.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:05 PM William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> An aside r.e. subversion;
>
> Just please don't do what
An aside r.e. subversion;
Just please don't do what gstein has warned us against. I've performed
the ill-advised jump-over abandoned work in the past;
svn rm ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk
svn cp ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk@123456 ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk
attempting to drop activity between 123457 and
On 1/17/19 6:59 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ahhh good.
On Jan 17, 2019, at 12:46 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:44 PM Jim Jagielski wrote:
Note that simply changing the commit msg logs does not solve the problem. There
is,
in fact, no 2.4.38 tag at all. And I'm guessing we
Ahhh good.
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 12:46 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:44 PM Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> Note that simply changing the commit msg logs does not solve the problem.
>> There is,
>> in fact, no 2.4.38 tag at all. And I'm guessing we destroyed the "real"
>>
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:44 AM Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Note that simply changing the commit msg logs does not solve the problem.
> There is,
> in fact, no 2.4.38 tag at all. And I'm guessing we destroyed the "real"
> 2.4.28 tag... :(
Not destroyed, as ylavic observed.
Nothing gets destroyed
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:44 PM Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Note that simply changing the commit msg logs does not solve the problem.
> There is,
> in fact, no 2.4.38 tag at all. And I'm guessing we destroyed the "real"
> 2.4.28 tag... :(
Fortunately it just created tags/2.4.28/2.4.x since
Note that simply changing the commit msg logs does not solve the problem. There
is,
in fact, no 2.4.38 tag at all. And I'm guessing we destroyed the "real" 2.4.28
tag... :(
See no tarball at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
Also in SVN and Subject of theis mauk I see 2.4.28 instead of 2.4.28
On 17-01-19 18:13, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
Sorry make the same mistake :)
See no tarball at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I was used to see the URL http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ also there
no tarball
Also in SVN and Subject of this mail I see 2.4.28 instead of 2.4.38
On 17-01-19 18:24, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On 2019-01-17 11:24, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Shouldn't this be 2.4.38??
On Jan 17, 2019, at 12:13 PM, Daniel Ruggeri
wrote:
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few
Shouldn't this be 2.4.38??
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 12:13 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
>
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.28:
[ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
[ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
[ ]
13 matches
Mail list logo
