Okay, some final things before I start flinging vote messages about:
- DOAP files will, for the time being, only be possible for Apache
committers putting their DOAP files into people.apache.org. This is due
to a very strict firewall policy by Infrastructure, to which I agree. I
will look into
So, this is when we get to vote on things!
I am satisfied that the new site is working as intended, and that new
requests for features can be integrated and reviewed, as the site is
publicly available in svn (in the infrastructure repository).
Now, the vote deals with a lot of things, so I'd like
On 01/25/2013 02:21 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
Vote
[ X ] +1: I support this proposal
[ ] 0: I don't care
[ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours, thus ending, at
earliest, on Monday, January 28th, 13:20 GMT.
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk wrote:
Proposal
1) Move the current modules.apache.org to modules-archive.apache.org
2) Create a link on both modules.apache.org and
modules-archive.apache.org linking to each other.
3) Replace
On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jan 23, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net wrote:
On 1/23/2013 11:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
iirc, there were people who did not like that :)
Do you mean PPI in *addition to* BI?
Yes
Fine w/
Daniel Gruno wrote:
So, this is when we get to vote on things!
I am satisfied that the new site is working as intended, and that new
requests for features can be integrated and reviewed, as the site is
publicly available in svn (in the infrastructure repository).
Now, the vote deals with
On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk wrote:
Proposal
1) Move the current modules.apache.org to modules-archive.apache.org
And made read-only, right?
2) Create a link on both modules.apache.org and
modules-archive.apache.org linking to each other.
3)
On 01/25/2013 04:00 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk wrote:
Proposal
1) Move the current modules.apache.org to modules-archive.apache.org
And made read-only, right?
Yes, it will be a read only archive - no sense in
Am 25.01.2013 14:21, schrieb Daniel Gruno:
Vote
[ ] +1: I support this proposal
[ ] 0: I don't care
[ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
+1
Gün.
Vote
[ ] +1: I support this proposal
[ ] 0: I don't care
[ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours, thus ending, at
earliest, on Monday, January 28th, 13:20 GMT.
Standard majority consensus applies, as it has
On 1/25/2013 5:21 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
Vote
[X] +1: I support this proposal
[ ] 0: I don't care
[ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
+1
On Jan 25, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
[ ] +1: I support this proposal
[ ] 0: I don't care
[ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
--
Rich Bowen
rbo...@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen
rbo...@apache.org
On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:21, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk wrote:
[ ] +1: I support this proposal
[ ] 0: I don't care
[ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because..
+1.
Regards,
Graham
--
On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:21, Daniel Gruno wrote:
[ ] +1: I support this proposal
[ ] 0: I don't care
[ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
-1 as stated. +1 in principle.
IMHO it needs a tiny change. Instead of creating a messy new
DNS entry for modules-archive, it should live
On 25 Jan 2013, at 22:01, Nick Kew n...@webthing.com wrote:
-1 as stated. +1 in principle.
IMHO it needs a tiny change. Instead of creating a messy new
DNS entry for modules-archive, it should live under a single
hostname: maybe modules.apache.org/archive/
Is this practical, or will all
On 01/25/2013 11:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:21, Daniel Gruno wrote:
[ ] +1: I support this proposal
[ ] 0: I don't care
[ ] -1: I don't support this proposal, because...
-1 as stated. +1 in principle.
IMHO it needs a tiny change. Instead of creating a messy
Hi,
cppCheck complains about a potential NULL pointer deference in
module/arch/netware/mod_nw_ssl.c
In function 'ssl_io_filter_Upgrade' we have, line 1165 :
if (r) {
...
}
else {
ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_ERR, 0, r-server, APLOGNO(02131)
...
On 25.01.13 5:24 , Daniel Gruno wrote:
- Authors that have created or updated a module within the last two
years will be notified that there is a new site, and encouraged to
submit their modules to this site.
I know, I don't have the right to vote, but I still would like to know, why
you don't
On 01/25/2013 11:39 PM, Helmut Tessarek wrote:
On 25.01.13 5:24 , Daniel Gruno wrote:
- Authors that have created or updated a module within the last two
years will be notified that there is a new site, and encouraged to
submit their modules to this site.
I know, I don't have the right to
On 01/25/2013 11:39 PM, Helmut Tessarek wrote:
On 25.01.13 5:24 , Daniel Gruno wrote:
- Authors that have created or updated a module within the last two
years will be notified that there is a new site, and encouraged to
submit their modules to this site.
I know, I don't have the right to
On 25 Jan 2013, at 22:13, Graham Leggett wrote:
Is this practical, or will all the links break?
Fair question. I guess the answer is try-it-and-see.
Is the site populated with dynamically-generated links
relative to its own root / ? Static links should be trivial
to run through a one-off
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Gruno [mailto:rum...@cord.dk]
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 11:52 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
So, this is when we get to vote on things!
I am satisfied that the new site is working as intended, and that
On 25 Jan 2013, at 22:55, Daniel Gruno wrote:
On 01/25/2013 11:39 PM, Helmut Tessarek wrote:
On 25.01.13 5:24 , Daniel Gruno wrote:
- Authors that have created or updated a module within the last two
years will be notified that there is a new site, and encouraged to
submit their modules to
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Gruno [mailto:rum...@cord.dk]
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013 8:54 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Vote] Overhaul modules.apache.org
On 01/25/2013 11:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:21, Daniel Gruno wrote:
[ ] +1: I
On 25 Jan 2013, at 23:06, Nick Kew wrote:
Rather say, every vote counts, but not every vote is binding.
... insofar as 'binding' has meaning in this context (before someone
takes up that baton and replies at length).
--
Nick Kew
On Jan 25, 2013, at 5:21 AM, Daniel Gruno rum...@cord.dk wrote:
[ ] +1: I support this proposal
+1
...and whatever you want to do with the old site is fine by me.
What level of traffic are we seeing on it? Shouldn't we just make a clean
break and respond to any URL into the old database
On 25.01.13 17:51 , Daniel Gruno wrote:
The old data is simply incompatible with the new system, and we have no
way of knowing which modules still exist except to to through them all
manually (mind you, this is a lot of records) and check. The new system
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
27 matches
Mail list logo
