-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Colm MacCarthaigh
After that, based on your excellent summary, I'm begining to see the
wisdom of a subproject - despite the overhead, maximising developer
involvement and the potential community size is much more important.
Just for my
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Roy T. Fielding
The sane solution would be to convince the US government to remove
encryption from the export control list, since that regulation has
been totally ineffective. That is not likely to happen during this
I totally agree, but I fear
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:47:59PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
to with a URL. That is no big deal. The big deal is that 5D002
classification also means that it is illegal for the ASF to knowingly
allow anyone residing in, or a citizen of, the T-8 countries, or anyone
on the denied persons
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Joe Orton [
Would only committers count as participating in the project
for this
purpose, do you think? Random people submitting patches would not?
Stupid question: How can someone who is not allowed to download the sources
can submit patches?
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:29:06PM +0200, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF EITO wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Joe Orton [
Would only committers count as participating in the project
for this
purpose, do you think? Random people submitting patches would not?
Stupid question: How
Before Dublin, I'd like to scratch several of my own itches to start with
something of a 'blank page' and moving forward with new stuff, rather than
our usual rehashes @ the hackathon.
Numero Uno is to permanantly remove apache 1.3.x from our live
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 01:02:23PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From the peanut gallery
[X] Jettison apache/win 1.3 binaries to a footnote of history in archives
I'd even go as far as removing all of them or if _really_ wanting to
keep one, then keep the latest around but be ready to
On 06/09/2006 10:47 PM, wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Fri Jun 9 13:47:02 2006
New Revision: 413158
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=413158view=rev
Log:
Note 2.2.2 was our 10 year celebration I believe, (just to put something
interesting front and center under that top
On 06/09/2006 08:02 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'm entirely neutral.) Please vote;
[X] Jettison apache/win 1.3 binaries to a footnote of history in archives
[ ] Beg of Bill, One more Round! of 1.3.36 for old times sake
[ ] Keep them available from www even if they are never
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 06/09/2006 10:47 PM, wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Fri Jun 9 13:47:02 2006
New Revision: 413158
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=413158view=rev
Log:
Note 2.2.2 was our 10 year celebration I believe, (just to put something
interesting front and center under
On Jun 9, 2006, at 12:57 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
I don't really see much reason for having 2.0.x bins at all, but
keeping
old ones around is just asking for trouble imho.
Here's a scenario: I have mod_x, compiled against Apache HTTP Server
version y. The maker of mod_x are bitches and do
Sander Temme wrote:
On Jun 9, 2006, at 12:57 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
I don't really see much reason for having 2.0.x bins at all, but keeping
old ones around is just asking for trouble imho.
What trouble? Do we ever make any claims about our software beyond if
it breaks, you get to keep
On Jun 9, 2006, at 3:56 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:29:06PM +0200, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF EITO
wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Joe Orton [
Would only committers count as participating in the project
for this
purpose, do you think? Random people
13 matches
Mail list logo
