Shouldn't we *not* be doing this type of backport? We really don't need
release branches any more if we're going to be voting directly on
release artifacts, since there are no changes that can be made to them
anyway. I'm -0.9 for 2.10 if this looks like a showstopper for building
with gcc4 and
- Original Message
From: Issac Goldstand mar...@beamartyr.net
To: apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 10:51:57 AM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r733221 - in /httpd/apreq/branches/v2_10:
include/apreq_version.h library/module_cgi.c library/parser.c
- Original Message
From: Issac Goldstand mar...@beamartyr.net
To: apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:01:42 AM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r733288 - in /httpd/apreq/trunk: CHANGES
module/apache2/apreq_module_apache2.h module/apache2/filter.c
Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
From: Issac Goldstand mar...@beamartyr.net
To: apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 10:51:57 AM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r733221 - in /httpd/apreq/branches/v2_10:
include/apreq_version.h library/module_cgi.c
Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
From: Issac Goldstand mar...@beamartyr.net
To: apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:01:42 AM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r733288 - in /httpd/apreq/trunk: CHANGES
module/apache2/apreq_module_apache2.h
- Original Message
From: Issac Goldstand mar...@beamartyr.net
To: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com
Cc: apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:11:28 AM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r733221 - in /httpd/apreq/branches/v2_10:
include/apreq_version.h
Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
From: Issac Goldstand mar...@beamartyr.net
To: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com
Cc: apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:11:28 AM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r733221 - in /httpd/apreq/branches/v2_10: