* Jim Jagielski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : > Thom May wrote: > > > > > > Hi folks, > > Hmmm... I wonder if we should hold off on 1.3.28 then. I'm > leaning towards releasing 1.3.28 as-is, and us placing this > in patches/ (and of course, being committed to 1.3.29-dev)... > > Any objections? I don't see that we should hold off 1.3.28, but maybe bring up the timescale for .29 a bit afterwards. So yes, +1. (Sorry for bringing this up today, but we litterally only found and fixed it late last night) Cheers -Thom
- [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy Thom May
- Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy Jim Jagielski
- Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy Bill Stoddard
- Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy Andr� Malo
- Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy Jim Jagielski
- Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy Thom May
- Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy David Reid
- Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy Jeff Trawick
- Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy Joshua Slive
- Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy Andr� Malo
- Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy Jeff Trawick
- Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy Ben Laurie
- Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy William A. Rowe, Jr.
