Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

If we get a more automated release process and more frequent releases out of this, for all branches, I am happy. That is in no way to be understood as a critic on the many times Jim has done the RMing. I am curious to learn what will happen to trunk in regards to this and what ABI breaking

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On 11/6/2017 12:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> On Nov 6, 2017, at 12:18 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> >> Reiterating again, that we disagree about who our preferred >> approaches are serving and they are disingenuous toward. >> Again, a value judgement. >> > Assuming we go

Re: [NOTICE] Intent to T 2.5.0-alpha

Hi, Luca;    This is a good question and I think it's fair to say that we could use STATUS. There are sections for showstoppers as well as a wish list section. Obviously, looking at trunk STATUS, there's some stuff in there that can be cleaned up a bit, but it seems to have all of the sections

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

Thx for the clarification. > On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:34 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Jim Jagielski > wrote: >> >>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 12:18 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> On Nov 6, 2017, at 12:18 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> >> Reiterating again, that we disagree about who our preferred >> approaches are serving and they are disingenuous toward. >> Again, a value

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

> On Nov 6, 2017, at 12:18 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Reiterating again, that we disagree about who our preferred > approaches are serving and they are disingenuous toward. > Again, a value judgement. > Assuming we go ahead and tag 2.5.0, what is your intention

Re: [NOTICE] Intent to T 2.5.0-alpha

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > Hi, all; > >As has been chatted about in other threads, I hope to T 2.5.0-alpha > in the coming days. I suppose notice is too soon to do so this evening, > so I'll plan for early next week. > >Also, as a side

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> On Nov 4, 2017, at 11:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> >> It is safer. It is incredibly time consuming to effectively perform >> a full audit of the state of trunk vs current. If we were to take

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:39 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2017 12:21, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > >> Sorry Bill, but that's not right. trunk is not a "branch" that directly >>

Re: svn commit: r1811930 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: STATUS patches/backport-module-flags.diff

Thanks for the review! Updated the patch. -Stefan > Am 06.11.2017 um 13:10 schrieb Yann Ylavic : > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:45 AM, wrote: >> Author: icing >> Date: Thu Oct 12 09:45:35 2017 >> New Revision: 1811930 >> >> URL:

Re: svn commit: r1811930 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: STATUS patches/backport-module-flags.diff

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:45 AM, wrote: > Author: icing > Date: Thu Oct 12 09:45:35 2017 > New Revision: 1811930 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1811930=rev > Log: > proposing new module flag backport > [] > > Added:

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

> On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:39 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2017 12:21, "Jim Jagielski" > wrote: > > Sorry Bill, but that's not right. trunk is not a "branch" that directly leads > to a releasable branch. Its simply

Re: IncludeOptional: feature request to be less strict

> Am 06.11.2017 um 12:25 schrieb Yann Ylavic : > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Joe Orton wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 01:15:07PM +0100, Luca Toscano wrote: >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>> in https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585 it

Re: IncludeOptional: feature request to be less strict

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Joe Orton wrote: > On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 01:15:07PM +0100, Luca Toscano wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> in https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585 it was asked to >> relax a bit how IncludeOptional works to allow a config to specify

Re: IncludeOptional: feature request to be less strict

On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 01:15:07PM +0100, Luca Toscano wrote: > Hi everybody, > > in https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57585 it was asked to > relax a bit how IncludeOptional works to allow a config to specify a path > in IncludeOptional that might not be (yet) on the file system