Jeff Trawick wrote: > Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>with the recent fix to apr_poll's memory leak we can start this ball >>rolling again.. > > > We'll need to state that it can't be used with > x Listen statements > or explain how to build APR to allow more descriptors with no memory > leak in apr_poll. > > >>I'll tag the 2.0.40 as the existing stuff tagged + this poll. >> >>is there any other small patches which need/should go into 40 since I >>last tagged ? > > > Looking at it from the other side: Why not tag HEAD? Was there > extensive testing done on IANH_PRE1_2040 that you don't want to put at > risk? Is there anything in particular after IANH_PRE1_2040 that you > don't think is ready to release? It has been a while since your tag, > and *just speaking personally* I'd prefer that any extra testing I do > encompass all the recent changes. >
I'm happy tagging HEAD as well, the only major change which I can see is the apr-iconv requirement.
