Re: [Fwd: Re: more importuning about the flood patch]

Fix coming, see my other reply. Sorry about this. Guy On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 15:15 +0200, Vincent van Scherpenseel wrote: > Oden Eriksson wrote: > > Does not build for me (r64) on Mandriva Linux 2008.1 (x86_64): > > > > > > Do you happen to compile flood using GCC 4.x? I couldn't compile

Re: [Fwd: Re: more importuning about the flood patch]

Folks I have the fixes for this and one other problem not mentioned that shows up under gcc 4. They amount to 3 lines. There are other warnings from parts of flood that I haven't touched so I'm going to keep my feet out of those for now. I'll submit my three line patch tomorrow. The version of

Re: svn commit: r648254 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: Makefile.in include/mod_request.h modules/filters/mod_request.h

On 04/15/2008 03:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: minfrin Date: Tue Apr 15 06:53:32 2008 New Revision: 648254 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=648254&view=rev Log: Move the public mod_request.h header out of the include directory and back to modules/filters. The current build of e

Re: Apache 3.0

On Apr 15, 2008, at 6:53 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Paul Querna wrote: For those who were not there, slides from Roy's keynote at ApacheCon EU: I came away with one question... if you read the slides

Configuration was Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases

On 4/15/08 12:27 PM, "Brad Nicholes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >IOW, we may be required to be conservative > when it comes to 1.3.x, 2.0.x or 2.2.x, but the same level of conservatism > shouldn't apply to 2.4 or 3.0. Which is one of the reasons I think now is the time to completely redo the confi

Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases

>>> On 4/15/2008 at 5:49 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Jagielski wrote: >> I think what Paul is suggesting (he will for sure correct me >> if I'm wrong) is that it's better to at least have some semblance >> of a schedule than not, and b

Re: 2.2.9 (Was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases)

I've just updated STATUS to reflect that I'm hoping for us to drive towards a 2.2.9 release by the end of this month...

Re: Apache 3.0

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Paul Querna wrote: For those who were not there, slides from Roy's keynote at ApacheCon EU: I came away with one question... if you read the slides you should understand Roy as pointing out the relative pea

Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases

Jim Jagielski wrote: I think what Paul is suggesting (he will for sure correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's better to at least have some semblance of a schedule than not, and by baselining every X months for a release, it provides us, as volunteers, to better allocate time. It does not mean, imo