On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 06:32 -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Are you planning to pursue 2.10 as RM or
should we be moving on to 2.11? The only outstanding issue I am aware
of is pgollucci's claim that the perl modules aren't linking correctly
to libapreq2 on Solaris. While that would be nice to
/apreq/branches/v2_10:
include/apreq_version.h library/module_cgi.c library/parser.c
module/apache2/handle.c
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 06:32 -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Are you planning to pursue 2.10 as RM or
should we be moving on to 2.11? The only outstanding issue I am aware
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
module
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 library
/module_cgi.c library/parser.c
module/apache2/handle.c
Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
From: Issac Goldstand
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
module/apache2/handle.c
Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
From: Issac Goldstand
To: apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 10:51:57 AM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r733221 - in /httpd/apreq