I happen to agree that the commit messages suck, but the right thing
to do is have a look at the script and suggest a patch on the
infrastructure mailing list. I would do it myself, but have a paper
to write first. I also think that placement of the Log text after
the long list of files is
At 05:34 PM 11/19/2004, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Kris Carlgren wrote:
Hi. I know Im new, and I wanted to check out the APR-1.0.0 release. With
the release, APR is receiving a lot of attention at the moment, so I thought
Id post my only problem and solution.
Everything compiled fine under
At 06:52 PM 11/19/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Saturday, November 20, 2004 1:49 AM +0100 André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Just a question:
Maybe I'm missing the info - is the httpd trunk supposed to work with the
apr 1.0.x branch or just the apr trunk?
We're going to have to decide
--On Friday, November 19, 2004 6:22 PM -0800 Roy T. Fielding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I happen to agree that the commit messages suck, but the right thing
to do is have a look at the script and suggest a patch on the
infrastructure mailing list. I would do it myself, but have a paper
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
ONLY if svn:eol-style crlf in conjunction with an svn diff produces
an identical result on linux and win32. Even then it creates a
binary diff (mixing line ending codes). This is -not- elegant.
Search for my previous rants on the subject.
I'm not sure exactly what the
At 09:14 PM 11/19/2004, Garrett Rooney wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
ONLY if svn:eol-style crlf in conjunction with an svn diff produces
an identical result on linux and win32. Even then it creates a
binary diff (mixing line ending codes). This is -not- elegant.
Search for my previous
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Simple. Let me suggest a patch containing
libapr.dsp
apr.dsp
build/config.m4
that effects some change to the build, for private build purposes.
Now, imagine trying to svn co such a patch, and have it apply, on
both win32 and unix without missing a beat.
When all
At 09:35 PM 11/19/2004, Garrett Rooney wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Simple. Let me suggest a patch containing
libapr.dsp
apr.dsp
build/config.m4
that effects some change to the build, for private build purposes.
Now, imagine trying to svn co such a patch, and have it apply, on
both
--On Friday, November 19, 2004 8:01 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll offer compelling argument. Allen offered patches, which
Roy vetoed, to fix object sizes on 32/64/64 ILP bit platforms,
and told Allen to go back and fix APR.
That is the right answer, branch APR 1.x,
At 11:03 PM 11/19/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Friday, November 19, 2004 8:01 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll offer compelling argument. Allen offered patches, which
Roy vetoed, to fix object sizes on 32/64/64 ILP bit platforms,
and told Allen to go back and
+1 for APR-0.9.5 and APR-Util-0.9.5
Tested on NetBSD-2.0RC2 and FreeBSD 5.2.1-p11
-Paul
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Can we please get some feedback on the following releases:
http://www.apache.org/~jerenkrantz/0.9.5/
(The directory actually contains 0.9.5 and 1.0.1.)
If we get 3 +1s, then I'll copy
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Garrett Rooney wrote:
We're using SVN now, might as well say so in README.dev ;-)
Got it, thanks.
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Garrett Rooney wrote:
In an attempt to see what happened in the last day or so while my email
was accidentally being routed to /dev/null (never mess with your email
settings right before getting on a plane, it's just asking for trouble)
I checked out the eyebrowse
--On Friday, November 19, 2004 11:14 PM -0700 Paul Querna
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 for APR-0.9.5 and APR-Util-0.9.5
Tested on NetBSD-2.0RC2 and FreeBSD 5.2.1-p11
Thanks. By my count, that is now 3 +1s for 0.9.5 and 1.0.1 (which includes my
own +1), so I've gone and placed them in /dist and
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 12:28:20AM -, Paul Querna wrote:
Author: pquerna
Date: Fri Nov 19 16:28:19 2004
New Revision: 105905
Added:
apr/apr/trunk/include/arch/unix/apr_arch_poll_private.h (contents, props
changed)
apr/apr/trunk/poll/unix/epoll.c (contents, props changed)
Hello,
I tried to subscribe the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, but get the following
response:
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:52:55 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: failure
* Uwe Zeisberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried to subscribe the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, but get the following
response:
Try [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-)
nd
--
Umfassendes Werk (auch fuer Umsteiger vom Apache 1.3)
-- aus einer Rezension
On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't believe that Allen would be able to complete his changes in a
reasonable timeframe. I'm tired of holding things up for a 'major'
rewrite that'll come any day now (TM). Sorry. I'd be willing to give
him a week or two to make the
At 08:23 AM 11/20/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
So, my opinion is that we let Allen branch apr off now and let him go at it
at a measured pace, but we shouldn't intend to hold httpd 2.2 for that. --
justin
+1. Of course, I am assuming that
We have
apr/apr/branches/
1.0.x/
- this is great
APR_0_9_BRANCH
- this should be 0.9.x?
APR/
unlabeled/
- these are duds - delete them?
apr/apr-util/branches/
1.0.x/
- again, dandy
APU_0_9_BRANCH
- this should be 0.9.x?
apr/apr-iconv/branches/
1.0.x/
--On Saturday, November 20, 2004 12:18 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have
apr/apr/branches/
1.0.x/
- this is great
APR_0_9_BRANCH
- this should be 0.9.x?
+1.
APR/
unlabeled/
- these are duds - delete them?
+1.
apr/apr-util/branches/
1.0.x/
-
At 08:23 AM 11/20/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
This kind of brings up an idea that's been sloshing around between
that handful of neurons in my noggin: Some sort of API seed
program within httpd/apr where we put a little more effort in
getting the latest API versions out there.
The other
So I got a little motivated, and started playing around with auto
generating windows dsp files just like we currently auto generate parts
of the make based build system. This doesn't actually work yet, for a
few reasons I'll get into in a sec, but I'm going to leave for the
weekend soon and I
At 12:37 PM 11/20/2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The other alternative is a 'fixed' subset of the httpd API that
we simply don't touch. At least so it's APR compat if not ABI
compat.
s/APR compat/API compat/
+1 on all changes.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
We have
apr/apr/branches/
1.0.x/
- this is great
APR_0_9_BRANCH
- this should be 0.9.x?
APR/
unlabeled/
- these are duds - delete them?
apr/apr-util/branches/
1.0.x/
- again, dandy
APU_0_9_BRANCH
- this should be
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd/mod_aspdotnet/trunk/Apache.Web/Apache.Web.Version.h?rev=105923view=markup
is how I coded the version header for mod_aspdotnet, so that
the .rc file...
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd/mod_aspdotnet/trunk/Apache.Web/Apache.Web.rc?rev=105923view=log
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Opinions on my '?'s above?
Looks good. -- justin
Likewise +1 to all.
--Cliff
apr/apr/branches/
APR_0_9_BRANCH
- 0.9.x
apr/apr-util/branches/
APU_0_9_BRANCH
- 0.9.x
apr/apr-iconv/branches/
API_0_9_BRANCH
- 0.9.x
All changed... you need to...
cd into your local checkout directories, and switch them.
cd /path-to-local/apr-0.9/
svn switch
28 matches
Mail list logo
