FWIW, I'm holding off based on a proxy/closing connection issue...
On Jun 10, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Okey dokey... unless I hear otherwise w/i a few hours, I will
> tag and roll 2.3.6-alpha
>
> On Jun 8, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Mario Brandt wrote:
>
>> Thanks Stefan,
>> it builds fi
And with a few addt'l patches, it builds clean (excluding some recent
ldap oddities coming from MS's toolchain), thanks for taking a good
look into this Mario.
On 6/8/2010 3:25 PM, Mario Brandt wrote:
> Thanks Stefan,
> it builds fine.
>
> Mario
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 21:51, Stefan Fritsch
Okey dokey... unless I hear otherwise w/i a few hours, I will
tag and roll 2.3.6-alpha
On Jun 8, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Mario Brandt wrote:
> Thanks Stefan,
> it builds fine.
>
>
> Mario
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 21:51, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>> This should be fixed now and I hopefully have also a
Thanks Stefan,
it builds fine.
Mario
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 21:51, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> This should be fixed now and I hopefully have also addressed Bill's
> concern about r952724. I don't see any blocker for an alpha-release
> anymore.
>
On Tuesday 08 June 2010, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > OK sounds like we're good for a 2.3.6-alpha... I'll likely
> > do either later on today or else Thursday (traveling on Weds).
>
> There is still the Windows build failure reported by Gregg L.
> Smith. Doe
I still get that error on Windows compiling from trunk.
Mario
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 16:05, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> OK sounds like we're good for a 2.3.6-alpha... I'll likely
>> do either later on today or else Thursday (traveling on Weds).
>
> There
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Jim Jagielski wrote:
OK sounds like we're good for a 2.3.6-alpha... I'll likely
do either later on today or else Thursday (traveling on Weds).
There is still the Windows build failure reported by Gregg L. Smith.
Does anybody with a Windows build environment have time to lo
OK sounds like we're good for a 2.3.6-alpha... I'll likely
do either later on today or else Thursday (traveling on Weds).
On Jun 7, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 02.06.2010 17:55, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week
On 02.06.2010 17:55, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week in
hopes that we can push out a beta v. soon after.
I think my changes concerning building shared modules by default and
adding items to the error log format are complete. And I guess Stefans
>> Sounds like the banner added here just needs to be dropped then, or am
>> I still lost?
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES?r1=909323&r2=909322&pathrev=909323
>
> drop that banner, rename the one at the top to 2.3.6 (I think that's
> what you mean)
Yep, misspoke. Fixed
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>
tags are cheap. If soon after 2.3.6 I need to do a 2.3.7
then I'm alright with that ;)
>>>
>>> slightly off-topic, how come
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
>>> tags are cheap. If soon after 2.3.6 I need to do a 2.3.7
>>> then I'm alright with that ;)
>>
>> slightly off-topic, how come our CHANGES has both a 2.3.6 and 2.3.7
>> banner but there's
On Jun 2, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> tags are cheap. If soon after 2.3.6 I need to do a 2.3.7
>> then I'm alright with that ;)
>
> slightly off-topic, how come our CHANGES has both a 2.3.6 and 2.3.7
> banner but there's no tag for the former?
Per Jim, 2.3.6 will be tagged next we
> tags are cheap. If soon after 2.3.6 I need to do a 2.3.7
> then I'm alright with that ;)
slightly off-topic, how come our CHANGES has both a 2.3.6 and 2.3.7
banner but there's no tag for the former?
--
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com
On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Sander Temme wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jim Jagielski
> wrote:
>>>> I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3
On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Sander Temme wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jim Jagielski
wrote:
> >> I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week in
> >> hopes that we can push out a beta v. s
On Jun 2, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week in
>> hopes that we can push out a beta v. soon after.
>
> Were infra's concerns wrapped up from the l
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week in
> hopes that we can push out a beta v. soon after.
Were infra's concerns wrapped up from the last alpha?
--
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com
On 02 Jun 2010, at 5:55 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week in
hopes that we can push out a beta v. soon after.
Release early, release often :)
Regards,
Graham
--
I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week in
hopes that we can push out a beta v. soon after.
20 matches
Mail list logo
