What I did was take the latest/working 2.0.x patch (from the PR report), and backported it to 1.3. I didn't patch the 2.x trees at the same time, because I simply forgot. :/
I believe Cliff is doing that as we speak.
On Feb 18, 2004, at 2:33 PM, Manni Wood wrote:
Ummm... as the person who created the new bug (by successfully stomping
a years-old one in the same module), I have a particular interest in the
solution of this bug. I had submitted a patch to the 2.x series on
bugzilla, and, eventually, things died down with no direction, so I
waited for feedback. So is Jim's patch already ported to 2.x? Is there
another forum where this got resolved? Also, in future, should I take
more initiative and submit a complete trio of patches instead of waiting
for feedback? Helping out is rewarding, but sometimes confusing for
newbies like me.
Regardless, thanks, all, for helping fix this bug.
Cheers,
-Manni
-----Original Message----- From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Sander Striker wrote:
In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49 aswell?
+1, but let's make sure to get the mod_usertrack fix finally committed. Jim already committed it to 1.3.x as far as I know, and there's no reason not to commit it to 2.0.x and 2.1.x except I just kept forgetting to do so.
--Cliff
-- ======================================================================= Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
