yeah, it's a bit of an overhead, but it allows
for one-to-one mapping of SVN commits to each new
feature. And it makes it easier for
people to follow what each smallish patch
does (and therefore +1 it) rather than wrapping
their heads around something larger.
On Jul 26, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Mladen
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
All of this sounds great! But I'm planning to TR by Wednesday, it's
just been way too long since we've had a release. Pathetic really :)
Just to make sure 2.2.3 and 2.0.59 are rock solid, I'll slide this to
Thursday morning. Please
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 11:02, Mladen Turk wrote:
There are lots of things to backport. IMHO its the entire HEAD,
and spread over the multiple svn commits.
How we should deal with that?
Having multiple backports or a single one?
IMO if we try and deal with that for a security release this
Nick Kew wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 11:02, Mladen Turk wrote:
There are lots of things to backport. IMHO its the entire HEAD,
and spread over the multiple svn commits.
How we should deal with that?
Having multiple backports or a single one?
IMO if we try and deal with that for a
On 07/26/2006 12:07 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 11:02, Mladen Turk wrote:
There are lots of things to backport. IMHO its the entire HEAD,
and spread over the multiple svn commits.
How we should deal with that?
Having multiple backports or a single one?
IMO if we try
Nick Kew wrote:
IMO if we try and deal with that for a security release this week,
we'll botch it.
that should not have been made known yet...
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|]
Mladen Turk wrote:
There are lots of things to backport. IMHO its the entire HEAD,
and spread over the multiple svn commits.
How we should deal with that?
Having multiple backports or a single one?
The patches before my addition for cping/cpong, that BTW is
configurable, and as such
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
There are lots of things to backport. IMHO its the entire HEAD,
and spread over the multiple svn commits.
How we should deal with that?
Having multiple backports or a single one?
we should simply update STATUS as usually... most of the
backports are
Please advise which APR, APR-UTIL to build against.
Steffen
http://www.apachelounge.com
- Original Message -
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 20:33
Subject: Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Jorge Schrauwen
. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.orgSent: Monday, July 24, 2006 20:33Subject: Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3 Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
On 7/24/06, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tag Roll :)It's similar, but there's no 'release' till it has
On 25.07.2006 13:00, Steffen wrote:
Please advise which APR, APR-UTIL to build against.
Either use trunk or the latest 1.2.x release (thats what I do).
Regards
Rüdiger
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
I used the apr from trunk like the buildscript on mac sugested.
I'll use trunk again tonight on the windows machine
FYI any 1.2.x release or later 1.x release should be fine. 1.2.{latest}
is baseline and likely to be what we ship with for a while.
Bill
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
All of this sounds great! But I'm planning to TR by Wednesday, it's
just been way too long since we've had a release. Pathetic really :)
Just to make sure 2.2.3 and 2.0.59 are rock solid, I'll slide this to
Thursday morning. Please get your backports committed
I don't want the 2.2.3 release to be held up too much, but there
are some things being worked on in the proxy balancer code
that would be useful to be available in 2.2.3. Mladen and
JFC are working on the AJP stuff and as soon as they
commit their changes, I'll be adding in my balancer set
On 24.07.2006 16:12, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I don't want the 2.2.3 release to be held up too much, but there
are some things being worked on in the proxy balancer code
that would be useful to be available in 2.2.3. Mladen and
JFC are working on the AJP stuff and as soon as they
commit their
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I don't want the 2.2.3 release to be held up too much, but there
are some things being worked on in the proxy balancer code
that would be useful to be available in 2.2.3. Mladen and
JFC are working on the AJP stuff and as soon as they
commit their changes, I'll be adding in
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I don't want the 2.2.3 release to be held up too much, but there
are some things being worked on in the proxy balancer code
that would be useful to be available in 2.2.3. Mladen and
JFC are working on the AJP stuff and as soon as they
commit their changes, I'll be adding in
On 7/24/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of this sounds great!But I'm planning to TR by Wednesday, it'sjust been way too long since we've had a release.Pathetic really :)TR = Tag and release right?Same voting rules apply? no member input is welcome but votes don't count?
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I don't want the 2.2.3 release to be held up too much, but there
But if any of the proxy/balancer devs know of actual showstoppers, real
regressions, it would be great to get that patched by sometime tomorrow.
I doubt thats realistic
On Jul 24, 2006, at 12:54 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I don't want the 2.2.3 release to be held up too much, but there
are some things being worked on in the proxy balancer code
that would be useful to be available in 2.2.3. Mladen and
JFC are working on the AJP stuff
Jim Jagielski wrote:
All of this sounds great! But I'm planning to TR by Wednesday, it's
just been way too long since we've had a release. Pathetic really :)
We can then do a quick 2.2.4 in a month to capture the balancer
and other goodies.
That would be great.
There are few things
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
On 7/24/06, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of this sounds great! But I'm planning to TR by Wednesday, it's
just been way too long since we've had a release. Pathetic really :)
TR = Tag and release right?
Tag
On 7/24/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen wrote: On 7/24/06, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of this sounds great!But I'm planning to TR by Wednesday, it's just been way too long since we've had a release.Pathetic really
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
On 7/24/06, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tag Roll :) It's similar, but there's no 'release' till it has
the votes.
Ooh so close ^^
So tag - source code is tarred?
tag - we bump versions and dup from
Ah that cleares it up :)Is there any [EMAIL PROTECTED] jargon page ;)i'll try to do a svn co
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/ and compile on mac os x tomorrow at work and maybe one later on windows once i get home.thinks to look fore are compile errors and
On 07/24/2006 10:28 PM, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Ah that cleares it up :)
Is there any [EMAIL PROTECTED] jargon page ;)
I think not, but feel free to propose a patch for the
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/
section or a subpage :-).
i'll try to do a svn co
On 7/24/06, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07/24/2006 10:28 PM, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Ah that cleares it up :) Is there any [EMAIL PROTECTED] jargon page ;)I think not, but feel free to propose a patch for the
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/section or a subpage :-). i'll try to do a svn
27 matches
Mail list logo
