On 02/22/2011 10:43 PM, j...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: Tue Feb 22 21:43:44 2011
> New Revision: 1073520
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1073520&view=rev
> Log:
> Be at least somewhat more RESTful... Use POST for changing stuff.
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/trunk/modul
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 11:55 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> If you have seen apache2 it is only because debian (and its clones)
> call it that, I've seen an apache tree call it that yet.
Correction, I've *never* seen...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 02:46 +0300, Alexander GQ Gerasiov wrote:
> Hello, Noel.
If you have seen apache2 it is only because debian (and its clones) call
it that, I've seen an apache tree call it that yet.
But, thats a pretty typical response from a debian troll, debian is
right and everyone e
Hello, Noel.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:27:42 +1000
Noel Butler wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 20:04 +0300, Alexander GQ Gerasiov wrote:
>
> > because I use modern OS with package system and don't want to
> > depend on
>
>
> Now there's a contradiction.
No it is not. You just need to separate me
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 20:04 +0300, Alexander GQ Gerasiov wrote:
> because I use modern OS with package system and don't want to depend on
Now there's a contradiction.
> 2.I'd like to use apache2+fcgid+suexec+php5. But with original suexec I
apache2 ?? whats that ? it is called apache
Hello there.
Some days ago I found that I'm tired of original suexec which is
shipped with apache.
I have two issues:
1.I'd like to configure it with config file, not with rebuilding,
because I use modern OS with package system and don't want to depend on
self-compiled components.
2.I'd like to u
On Feb 22, 2011, at 10:45 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/22/2011 9:43 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>> On 22 Feb 2011, at 17:13, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> I think we're about ready... My plan is to T&R 2.3.11-beta the start
>>> of next week, allowing this week for some final touches...
>>
On 2/22/2011 9:43 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2011, at 17:13, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I think we're about ready... My plan is to T&R 2.3.11-beta the start
>> of next week, allowing this week for some final touches...
>
> Remind me, at what point does the API freeze?
When 2.3-beta b
On 22 Feb 2011, at 17:13, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I think we're about ready... My plan is to T&R 2.3.11-beta the start
> of next week, allowing this week for some final touches...
Remind me, at what point does the API freeze?
Regards,
Graham
--
I think we're about ready... My plan is to T&R 2.3.11-beta the start
of next week, allowing this week for some final touches...
On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Let's commit to pushing for a 2.3.11-BETA...
>
On Feb 14, 2011, at 5:00 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/12/2011 10:14 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>> On Thursday 10 February 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Let's commit to pushing for a 2.3.11-BETA...
>>
>> +1
>>
>> One question: How do we handle truly experimental modules (e.g.
>> mpm_si
Thank you to instruct a good / specific usage of svn.apache.org.
I was about to look into SVN project for some manual page of SVN.
Using annotation view to identify the revision number
is another good solution than listing up PR numbers.
// Using SVN via some scripts like ruby seems attractive for
On 22 Feb 2011, at 07:47, Kuge, Tetsuo wrote:
> Without PR number, it seemed too hard to point out the changed code source
> code.
> So I wished that there appear specific PR number from some root "Change Log"
> data.
>
>> Not as such. Check the SVN record for the context of the changes that
13 matches
Mail list logo
