"Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we have a good shot at a beta candidate. I plan to tag the tree
> early this afternoon (ET) unless I hear objections.
I think it is fine for that tarball to go out as a beta as long as we
make a patch available for srclib/apr-util/Makefile.in to use with RH
7.1 (and whatever other platforms may be affected).
As far as proxy... I personally wouldn't hold up a beta for it. My
main concern is that we seem to be at a stable point now and I'd like
to see a stake in the ground with the current code.
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta... Greg Stein
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... Graham Leggett
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... Greg Stein
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... Graham Leggett
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... Greg Stein
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... Graham Leggett
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta... Graham Leggett
- .Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate Jeff Trawick
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate rbb
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate Greg Stein
- 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 candidate Ian Holsman
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate Graham Leggett
- RE: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate GOMEZ Henri
