Eric Covener wrote:
>
> Is there any concern about the SNI support sitting in trunk? IIUC
> Joe's specific concern (testable failure) referenced in the stalled
> backport proposal are addressed by a later trunk commit, but there is
> still the spectre of similar but undiscovered cases and the issu
On 01/18/2009 05:23 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
>>
>>> Vote closed with one -1, and no other votes.
>>>
>>> I guess 2.3.1 was DOA.
>>>
>>> I think the issues that killed it have been fixed in tr
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jan 8, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
>
>> Vote closed with one -1, and no other votes.
>>
>> I guess 2.3.1 was DOA.
>>
>> I think the issues that killed it have been fixed in trunk. Thoughts on
>> starting 2.3.2 early next week?
On Jan 8, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Vote closed with one -1, and no other votes.
I guess 2.3.1 was DOA.
I think the issues that killed it have been fixed in trunk.
Thoughts on starting 2.3.2 early next week?
+1
Paul Querna wrote:
Vote closed with one -1, and no other votes.
I guess 2.3.1 was DOA.
I think the issues that killed it have been fixed in trunk. Thoughts on
starting 2.3.2 early next week?
+1 :)
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On 01/08/2009 08:02 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 08.01.2009 19:33, Paul Querna wrote:
>> Vote closed with one -1, and no other votes.
>>
>> I guess 2.3.1 was DOA.
>>
>> I think the issues that killed it have been fixed in trunk. Thoughts on
>> starting 2.3.2 early next week?
>
> There is not yet
On 08.01.2009 19:33, Paul Querna wrote:
Vote closed with one -1, and no other votes.
I guess 2.3.1 was DOA.
I think the issues that killed it have been fixed in trunk. Thoughts on
starting 2.3.2 early next week?
There is not yet any fix in trunk for the delayed closing of files when
using HT
Vote closed with one -1, and no other votes.
I guess 2.3.1 was DOA.
I think the issues that killed it have been fixed in trunk. Thoughts on
starting 2.3.2 early next week?
-Paul
Paul Querna wrote:
Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.3.1-alpha are available at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev
On 01/03/2009 07:39 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
> Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.3.1-alpha are available at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Your votes please;
>
> ±1
> [ ] Release httpd-2.3.0 as Alpha
>
>
> Vote closes at 7:00 UTC on Thursday January 8 2009.
-1. It crashes o
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
> [ -1 ] Release httpd-2.3.1 as Alpha
For me, r730882 busts the build on Mac OS X. (It can't find pcre.)
More in my reply to the commit msg... -- justin
Paul Querna wrote:
Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.3.1-alpha are available at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Your votes please;
±1
[ ] Release httpd-2.3.0 as Alpha
This should actually be "Release httpd-2.3.1 as Alpha", but I
fail at editing copied text.
I hope everyone
Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.3.1-alpha are available at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Your votes please;
±1
[ ] Release httpd-2.3.0 as Alpha
Vote closes at 7:00 UTC on Thursday January 8 2009.
Thanks,
Paul
12 matches
Mail list logo