RE: Tagged the tree

2003-07-08 Thread Sander Striker
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:08 PM Sander Striker wrote: I've tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_47_PRE1. Testing would be greatly appreciated. The new httpd has been running live on daedalus since Thursday, 03-Jul-2003 11:48:45

Re: Tagged the tree

2003-07-03 Thread gregames
Sander Striker wrote: Hi, I've tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_47_PRE1. Testing would be greatly appreciated. will do. I haven't been following the lists too closely lately (day job + personal upheaval) so I appreciate the off list email. Cheers, Greg

Re: Tagged the tree

2003-07-03 Thread gregames
Sander Striker wrote: I've tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_47_PRE1. Testing would be greatly appreciated. The new httpd has been running live on daedalus since Thursday, 03-Jul-2003 11:48:45 PDT. So far, so good. Greg

Re: Tagged the tree

2003-07-03 Thread Sander Temme
on 7/3/03 3:34, Sander Striker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_47_PRE1. Testing would be greatly appreciated. Built on Darwin 6.6 (MacOSX 10.2.6), gcc 3.3, the following configure line: #! /bin/sh # # Created by configure CFLAGS=-DDEBUG -O0

Re: Tagged the tree, one more time

2003-01-17 Thread Greg Ames
Sander Striker wrote: I just tagged STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE3. I think this is going to be our .44. It would be nice to give it one more day on daedalus and get some +1s on it. +1 for release as 2.0.44, and thanks for your efforts. Greg

Re: Tagged the tree, one more time

2003-01-16 Thread Aaron Bannert
Please don't remove AGB_BEFORE_AAA_CHANGES until after the next few -2.0 releases. -aaron On Tuesday, January 14, 2003, at 02:55 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Private tags are getting pretty annoying. You should only use one and only one private tag per RM (without a version number) and just

Re: Tagged the tree, one more time

2003-01-14 Thread Roy T. Fielding
Private tags are getting pretty annoying. You should only use one and only one private tag per RM (without a version number) and just move it around to reflect the state of your private tree. On a related note, I would like to remove all of the non-official tags that are older than a few months.

Re: Tagged the tree, one more time

2003-01-14 Thread Greg Stein
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 02:55:14PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Private tags are getting pretty annoying. You should only use one and only one private tag per RM (without a version number) and just move it around to reflect the state of your private tree. On a related note, I would like to

Re: Tagged the tree

2003-01-10 Thread Brad Nicholes
Just discovered a critical error in Apache for NetWare that prevents Apache from being run in protected address space. I have committed the fix in os/netware/util_nw.c in the httpd-2.0 branch. Can this fix be added to the tag? Brad Nicholes Senior Software Engineer Novell, Inc., the leading

RE: Tagged the tree

2003-01-10 Thread Sander Striker
From: Brad Nicholes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 4:48 PM Just discovered a critical error in Apache for NetWare that prevents Apache from being run in protected address space. I have committed the fix in os/netware/util_nw.c in the httpd-2.0 branch. Can this

Re: Tagged the tree

2003-01-10 Thread Greg Ames
Sander Striker wrote: I'll have some time tonight to tag _PRE3, which we should consider to become .44. I don't know how/what you are planning to tag, but I'd sure like to see my server/core.c patch in there to fix the fd leaks on keepalive connections. Last time I looked, it was the latest

RE: Tagged the tree

2003-01-10 Thread Sander Striker
From: Greg Ames [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 8:46 PM Sander Striker wrote: I'll have some time tonight to tag _PRE3, which we should consider to become .44. I don't know how/what you are planning to tag, but I'd sure like to see my server/core.c patch in

Re: Tagged the tree

2003-01-07 Thread Brad Nicholes
I just committed apr-util/include/apu.hnw that changes the #define to show that APU for NetWare has iconv support. Can this be added to the tag? Brad Nicholes Senior Software Engineer Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions http://www.novell.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday,

Re: Tagged the tree

2003-01-07 Thread Brian Pane
Sander Striker wrote: Hi, I tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2. The tag consists of APACHE_2_0_BRANCH and apr/apr-util HEAD. If you feel that something should not be in here, please let me know ASAP. What about the change in argument types for the APR queue and hash API? That's the

Re: Tagged the tree

2003-01-07 Thread Philip M. Gollucci
cvs co -R -rSTRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2 httpd-2.0 cd httpd-2.0/srclib cvs co -R -rSTRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2 apr apr-util cd .. ./buildconf ./configure --prefix=$DIR_INSTALL/apache2-prefork --with-perl=$PERL --with-mpm=prefork --enable-mods-shared=all --enable-maintainer-mode --enable-debug

Re: Tagged the tree

2003-01-07 Thread Philip M. Gollucci
Addition: from config.log hostname = p6m7g8.hyatsv01.md.comcast.net uname -m = i386 uname -r = 5.0-CURRENT uname -s = FreeBSD uname -v = FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT #4: Fri Dec 27 03:36:47 GMT 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/PHILIP Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread

Re: Tagged the tree

2003-01-07 Thread Sergey
Have it running now on Source Mage GNU/Linux (source-based) using Berkeley DB 4.1.25, with this: Apache/2.0.44-dev (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.44-dev OpenSSL/0.9.6h PHP/4.3.0RC4 mod_python/3.0.1 Python/2.2.2 DAV/2 mod_fastcgi/mod_fastcgi-SNAP-0210222112 All modules are compiled, but the most used standard

RE: Tagged the tree...

2002-12-08 Thread Sander Striker
From: André Malo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 December 2002 00:13 * Sander Striker wrote: I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and point out any problems. uhm. docs-problem ;-) Thanks for the heads

Re: Tagged the tree...

2002-12-08 Thread Yoshiki Hayashi
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and point out any problems. uhm. docs-problem ;-) Thanks for the heads up. I'll correct this in the PRE2 tag. Sorry for leaving

Re: Tagged the tree...

2002-12-07 Thread André Malo
* Sander Striker wrote: I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and point out any problems. ehm perhaps a silly question: what apr, apr-util and apr-iconv will be used? HEAD? nd -- sub the($){+shift} sub answer

RE: Tagged the tree...

2002-12-07 Thread Sander Striker
From: André Malo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 December 2002 12:13 * Sander Striker wrote: I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and point out any problems. ehm perhaps a silly question: what apr,

Re: Tagged the tree...

2002-12-07 Thread André Malo
* Sander Striker wrote: I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and point out any problems. uhm. docs-problem ;-) I forgot to mention: docs/manual/mod/directives.html.ja.jis (rev. 1.13) I'm missing:

Re: Tagged the tree...

2002-12-07 Thread Eric Gillespie
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This tag builds for me and serves pages at the minimum. I'll run the testsuite tomorrow. I just rebuilt from the STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 tag and it works perfectly on NetBSD/i386. The two problems i reported in the last few days have been resolved. --

Re: Tagged the tree...

2002-12-07 Thread Sander Temme
This tag builds for me and serves pages at the minimum. I'll run the testsuite tomorrow. I built your tag tonight on my MacOSX 10.2 test box: Darwin shadow.local. 6.1 Darwin Kernel Version 6.1: Fri Sep 6 23:24:34 PDT 2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.2.obj~2/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc Built

RE: Tagged the tree

2002-09-10 Thread Sander Striker
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 10 September 2002 01:27 Sander ( Co) with .40, we backed out the apr-iconv due to it's not-ready state, with the attached patch. I've been intending to get the openssl/iconv/zlib library linkage stubs done for Win32,

Re: Tagged the tree

2002-09-10 Thread Ask Bjoern Hansen
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Greg Stein wrote: [...] Personally, I would just advocate shifting to Subversion. Part of our release process injects the revision number into the header file. Thus, the tarball always states *precisely* what revision the code came from. FWIW; for perl5 perforce is used

Re: Tagged the tree

2002-09-09 Thread Greg Stein
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 11:21:33PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Um, the point is we don't want people testing the tags until they have been blessed as an alpha. Hunh? Of course we want people testing the code. I think the problem that you're trying to avoid is people testing a tag named

Re: Tagged the tree

2002-09-09 Thread gregames
Sander Striker wrote: Hi, I tagged the tree today as STRIKER_2_0_41_PRE1. I'll do some testing this weekend myself and will retag for release after I get some positive feedback on this tag. Greg, could you bump daedalus to this tag next week to see how it holds? Sure. I was swamped

Re: Tagged the tree

2002-09-09 Thread Jeff Stuart
What's the current status? Have we tagged for 2.0.41 yet or no? Will this be happening today/tonight/early tomorrow morning? (IE, I'm installing subversion and I'd PREFER to grab 2.0.41 and not head.) On Saturday 07 September 2002 11:12 am, Sander Striker wrote: Hi, I tagged the tree

Re: Tagged the tree

2002-09-09 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Sander ( Co) with .40, we backed out the apr-iconv due to it's not-ready state, with the attached patch. I've been intending to get the openssl/iconv/zlib library linkage stubs done for Win32, but my time's been rather short. I should be able to attack it late this week or early next

Re: Tagged the tree

2002-09-08 Thread Aaron Bannert
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 07:00:27PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote: Generally, we do not create tarballs of tags, because the tags are meant to be used by developers before the release is rolled. The problem with tarballs, is that once they are created, they can be downloaded, and then it is very

Re: Tagged the tree

2002-09-08 Thread Chris Taylor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - - Original Message - From: Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 11:22 PM Subject: Re: Tagged the tree If there are enough people like Chris who want snapshot-like tarballs of development

Re: Tagged the tree

2002-09-08 Thread rbb
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - - Original Message - From: Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 11:22 PM Subject: Re: Tagged the tree If there are enough people like

Re: Tagged the tree

2002-09-07 Thread Brian Pane
Sander Striker wrote: Hi, I tagged the tree today as STRIKER_2_0_41_PRE1. I'll do some testing this weekend myself and will retag for release after I get some positive feedback on this tag. Thanks, Sander. I've tested this tag successfully with the leader/follower and prefork MPMs on

Re: Tagged the tree

2002-09-07 Thread Brian Pane
Brian Pane wrote: Sander Striker wrote: Hi, I tagged the tree today as STRIKER_2_0_41_PRE1. I'll do some testing this weekend myself and will retag for release after I get some positive feedback on this tag. Thanks, Sander. I've tested this tag successfully with the

Re: Tagged the tree

2002-09-07 Thread Chris Taylor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sorry if this is a stupid question, but is it possible to get this tag as a .tar.gz somewhere on apache.org? Downloading the tree via CVS is a slow task for my poor modem :) Chris Taylor - The guy with the PS2 WebServer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -

Re: Tagged the tree

2002-09-07 Thread rbb
Generally, we do not create tarballs of tags, because the tags are meant to be used by developers before the release is rolled. The problem with tarballs, is that once they are created, they can be downloaded, and then it is very difficult to determine which version of the tarball a user has.

Re: Tagged the tree

2002-09-07 Thread Chris Taylor
, September 08, 2002 12:00 AM Subject: Re: Tagged the tree Generally, we do not create tarballs of tags, because the tags are meant to be used by developers before the release is rolled. The problem with tarballs, is that once they are created, they can be downloaded, and then it is very difficult