William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> So speaking for myself, I am interested.
As am I.
> In fact, if everything builds at the moment against 1.3.x apr (irrespective
> of whether or not all features are enabled) I'm likely to just tag on Sunday
> or Monday, and give testers something to start chewing on
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Yes, I know all that. But the reason I do this is to see if there
> is any sort of support behind this... I've I make this proposal and
> don't see any +1s, then it leaves me to believe that most people
> aren't so interested in doing so, which makes me wonder why.
So spe
On 15.10.2009 21:54, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Planning on pushing this out to coincide w/ ACUS09... Let's assume
> head of apr 1.4...
+1
On Oct 15, 2009, at 7:45 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Planning on pushing this out to coincide w/ ACUS09... Let's assume
head of apr 1.4...
-1 veto; that is not released code, and I'm not fond of the idea of
a fork
of apr managed at httpd.
Who said anything abou
On Oct 15, 2009, at 7:56 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Planning on pushing this out to coincide w/ ACUS09... Let's assume
head of apr 1.4...
You've made 'reservations' a number times in the past several years
in STATUS, and
on list, that weren't realized for >1+ mon
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Planning on pushing this out to coincide w/ ACUS09... Let's assume
> head of apr 1.4...
You've made 'reservations' a number times in the past several years in STATUS,
and
on list, that weren't realized for >1+ month afterwards.
Any time you would like to tag an alpha, plea
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Planning on pushing this out to coincide w/ ACUS09... Let's assume
> head of apr 1.4...
-1 veto; that is not released code, and I'm not fond of the idea of a fork
of apr managed at httpd.
But if you meant, you will be moving forwards in apr to have that group accept
an apr
Planning on pushing this out to coincide w/ ACUS09... Let's assume
head of apr 1.4...
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>
> Subj says it all... As a quick check to see where we are, so we
> can determine where we need to go, is now a good time to release
> a 2.3.3 alpha?
I think that would be a terrific idea :) Presuming that you are happy
to revert the open vetoes of you
Subj says it all... As a quick check to see where we are, so we
can determine where we need to go, is now a good time to release
a 2.3.3 alpha?
10 matches
Mail list logo