Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > > On 08/13/2007 09:34 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > >>> On 08/13/2007 07:38 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>>> Jim's spearheaded an effort to release httpd-2.0.60 and we've > >>>> discovered a set of socket issues that need to be corrected by > >>>> apr-0.9.15. > >>> How do we plan to address these? Like in 1.2.x by reverting the > >>> backports (which seems to make sense to me given the comments > >>> in r473681, http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=473681)? > >>> Or should we backport r447894? > >>> I am happy to proceed either way with a preference of reverting. > >> That would be my pref as well... > > > > +1. I raised an objection when this first went in that changing the > > "contract" was iffy. Our entire versioning rules were based on the > > fact that once you have a specific major, minimum .minor - that's it. > > Your app is safe. > > > > It's a nice idea in 1.3, but since it's causing issues, simply revert. > > Done in r565517. >
Perfect... -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
