Re: svn commit: r1501215 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
++0.5: jj: I would prefer if this sat in trunk for a few months first OT and maybe a dumb question, but if something got two +1's and two +0.5's, would it be considered approved or not?
Re: svn commit: r1501215 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
On Tuesday, July 9, 2013, Eric Covener wrote: ++0.5: jj: I would prefer if this sat in trunk for a few months first OT and maybe a dumb question, but if something got two +1's and two +0.5's, would it be considered approved or not? No Perhaps the ITK guy could test the interface and report back. That, not time, is what we need. I'll look for the right thread. -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
Re: svn commit: r1501215 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 08:38:50AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: ++0.5: jj: I would prefer if this sat in trunk for a few months first OT and maybe a dumb question, but if something got two +1's and two +0.5's, would it be considered approved or not? Perhaps the ITK guy could test the interface and report back. That, not time, is what we need. I'll look for the right thread. Is this interface changed or not? If it's a backport of what's in trunk (r1389339), it's essentially what the 2.4.x branch of mpm-itk already uses. If not, I'll need to change the code to use the new hook, and then re-test (testing this is a bit icky). /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
Re: svn commit: r1501215 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson sgunder...@bigfoot.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 08:38:50AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: ++0.5: jj: I would prefer if this sat in trunk for a few months first OT and maybe a dumb question, but if something got two +1's and two +0.5's, would it be considered approved or not? Perhaps the ITK guy could test the interface and report back. That, not time, is what we need. I'll look for the right thread. Is this interface changed or not? If it's a backport of what's in trunk (r1389339), it's essentially what the 2.4.x branch of mpm-itk already uses. If not, I'll need to change the code to use the new hook, and then re-test (testing this is a bit icky). See the next e-mail, which has a pointer to the exact patch under consideration ;) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
Re: svn commit: r1501215 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
And if we can get this into 2.4.5 that would be great... On Jul 9, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson sgunder...@bigfoot.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 08:38:50AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: ++0.5: jj: I would prefer if this sat in trunk for a few months first OT and maybe a dumb question, but if something got two +1's and two +0.5's, would it be considered approved or not? Perhaps the ITK guy could test the interface and report back. That, not time, is what we need. I'll look for the right thread. Is this interface changed or not? If it's a backport of what's in trunk (r1389339), it's essentially what the 2.4.x branch of mpm-itk already uses. If not, I'll need to change the code to use the new hook, and then re-test (testing this is a bit icky). See the next e-mail, which has a pointer to the exact patch under consideration ;) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
