Re: svn commit: r1774650 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/cache/mod_socache_memcache.mak

I'm torn whether this is a showstopper or not. In all fairness, feature/enhancement crap modified 2.4.x branch as of; Modified *Tue Dec 13 13:57:02 2016 UTC* (3 days, 16 hours ago) by *jim* So the question is, is it fair to other platform maintainers to deal with enhancements requiring build

Re: svn commit: r1774650 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/cache/mod_socache_memcache.mak

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:41 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Rainer Jung > wrote: > >> Thanks, didn't notice the mak files, because trunk doesn't have them. >> >> I just noticed that the RSC_PROJ lines in the mak

Re: svn commit: r1774650 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/cache/mod_socache_memcache.mak

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: > Thanks, didn't notice the mak files, because trunk doesn't have them. > > I just noticed that the RSC_PROJ lines in the mak files also contain > include directories but not the one for "generators", in nove of the

Re: svn commit: r1774650 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/cache/mod_socache_memcache.mak

Thanks, didn't notice the mak files, because trunk doesn't have them. I just noticed that the RSC_PROJ lines in the mak files also contain include directories but not the one for "generators", in nove of the cache module mak files. I have no idea what RSC_PROJ is used for but it looks