> > From: "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 11:31 AM > > > > > > > The tree is tagged. We are on 2.0.19-dev. Commit away :-) > > > > This didn't answer the question below, did we toss proxy into the tarball? > > > > No. I rolled the tarball before I saw the request to add proxy. > > > I'm -1 on releasing this tarball upon the world without rolling in the > efforts > > of our proxy hackers! > Lest you think I am being unreasonable... My time to work on the server today and this weekend is very limited. I saw a nice opportunity to tag what I believe is a good verion of Apache 2.0 and I did not want to let the opportunity pass. If you can get mod_proxy in before the tree goes to hell again, I would be +1 on tagging 2.0.19 and releasing that instead of 2.0.18. Bill
- Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate Bill Stoddard
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate Graham Leggett
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidat... rbb
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidat... Bill Stoddard
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta cand... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta... Bill Stoddard
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... Bill Stoddard
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 ... Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... Greg Stein
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 ... Graham Leggett
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 ... Greg Stein
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 ... Graham Leggett
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 ... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 ... Greg Stein
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 ... Graham Leggett
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... Graham Leggett
