Martin Kutschker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 10:58:04 -0600
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Randall Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Patch for listen.c
b) TCP and SCTP are both congestion controlled protocols so
there should be no threat to the stability of the Big I
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 06:50 AM 11/22/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
wrowe 2002/11/21 18:08:42
Modified:include ap_release.h
Log:
Branch tag APACHE_2_0_BRANCH now contains Apache 2.0 development.
Persist
On 23 Nov 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
looking over diffs from APACHE_2_0_43 to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH:
. auth changes: IIRC, smart people decided the auth changes aren't
going to hurt anybody, so that's okay with me
Fine, but can we PLEASE think about the names a little more. As I've
said, some
At 08:11 AM 11/23/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
That sounds a lot like decide which stuff now tagged
APACHE_2_0_BRANCH should be deferred until 2.1 :) (or at least
deferred until after 2.0.44).
looking over diffs from APACHE_2_0_43 to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH:
. auth changes: IIRC, smart people decided
At 12:23 PM 11/23/2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
On 23 Nov 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
looking over diffs from APACHE_2_0_43 to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH:
. auth changes: IIRC, smart people decided the auth changes aren't
going to hurt anybody, so that's okay with me
Fine, but can we PLEASE think about
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
+* This branch is operating under R-T-C guidelines.
Huh? No way. We're all adults here. If someone commits something
that you are uncomfortable with, bring it up on the list. There's
no
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
My train-of-thought is that if that the user's 2.0.43 conf still works,
we succeeded :-)
+1
Joshua.
Didn't we rename this repository from httpd-2.0 to httpd? I see a
symlink
on icarus from httpd-2.0 -- httpd so both work the same, so we might
want to start encouraging use of the new real repo name.
-aaron
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
wrowe
First question is viewcvs; Greg, is it possible for viewcvs to have an
implicit -r APACHE_2_0_BRANCH with a uri such as;
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd-2.0/STATUS
and an alias to httpd-2.1 on HEAD?
Second question is snapshots... who's our snapshot guru? Can we
start culling true 2.0
At 01:31 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
Didn't we rename this repository from httpd-2.0 to httpd? I see a symlink
on icarus from httpd-2.0 -- httpd so both work the same, so we might
want to start encouraging use of the new real repo name.
Agreed... I'll go back over it all.
At 01:25 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
+* This branch is operating under R-T-C guidelines.
Huh? No way. We're all adults here. If someone commits something
that you are uncomfortable
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+- mod_file_cache: missing documentation
huh? What are you missing there?
nd
--
Da fällt mir ein, wieso gibt es eigentlich in Unicode kein
i mit einem Herzchen als Tüpfelchen? Das wär sooo süüss!
-- Björn Höhrmann in darw
I stole that from httpd/STATUS (removing it and adding it to docs/STATUS.)
If it's already out of date, please knock it out of docs/STATUS :-)
Bill
At 01:38 PM 11/23/2002, you wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+- mod_file_cache: missing documentation
huh? What are you missing there?
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:51 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wrote:
At 01:25 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
+* This branch is operating under R-T-C guidelines.
Huh? No way.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
Huh? No way. We're all adults here. If someone commits something
that you are uncomfortable with, bring it up on the list. There's
no reason for any ASF project to be R-T-C, IMHO. Our voting
rules are sufficient enough to protect against bogus commits
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
+* This branch is operating under R-T-C guidelines.
+
Is that really required? Certainly we haven't needed that (in 1.3 or
2.0) for *quite* a long time. Or is it because it's expected that
no one will be looking at the 2.0
On Sat, 2002-11-23 at 12:19, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
+* The 'modules/experimental' tree will evaporate soon. Anything
+ in the development branch should be located under it's eventual
+ home (such as modules/cache/.)
Aaron Bannert wrote:
Let's discuss this a little more, I'm curious what others think. Is
there really a problem now with people committing things that shouldn't
be committed? Take the 1.3 branch for example.
Lets put this another way. Why would we want to stop anyone from
volunteering
Brian Pane wrote:
I agree: we should keep the experimental modules.
+1
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 01:25 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
+* This branch is operating under R-T-C guidelines.
Huh? No way. We're all adults here. If
At 02:43 PM 11/23/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
My own POV is that a R-T-C on 2.0 will almost ensure a very slow
development environ on that effort. We haven't felt the need
to do so with 1.3, so, unless the idea is that: (1) no one will
be looking at 2.0 compared to 2.1 and therefore c-t-r is a noop
At 03:01 PM 11/23/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 01:25 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
+* This branch is operating under R-T-C
At 02:44 PM 11/23/2002, Brian Pane wrote:
On Sat, 2002-11-23 at 12:19, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
+* The 'modules/experimental' tree will evaporate soon. Anything
+ in the development branch should be located under it's eventual
+
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 03:44:48PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
FWIW I agree with Jeff here. I retracted the statement since JimJ,
Cliff and Aaron all seem to want to err on the side of C-T-R.
So count this
R-T-C: Jeff, Will
C-T-R: JimJ, Cliff, Aaron
More voices are
Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
fix that so I can commit to the new httpd repository directly?
Also, we need to get commit messages to show which
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 02:08 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 03:44:48PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
FWIW I agree with Jeff here. I retracted the statement since JimJ,
Cliff and Aaron all seem to want to err on the side of C-T-R.
So count this
R-T-C:
At 04:14 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
fix that so I can commit to the new httpd repository directly?
Sounds
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 02:35 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wrote:
Also, we need to get commit messages to show which branch
the commit went against.
It does... by default (no branch) the commit is against cvs HEAD
(the development branch.) The commit message alerts you when
the commit
Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
fix that so I can commit to the new httpd repository directly?
Why the heck was that done? Too many things get
At 05:32 PM 11/23/2002, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
fix that so I can commit to the new httpd repository directly?
Why
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 03:33 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 02:19:35PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
What will R-T-C give us that we don't already have right now?
code quality...
really, this isn't meant as flame. There's enough room for code quality
increase,
At 01:25 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
+* This branch is operating under R-T-C guidelines.
Huh? No way. We're all adults here. If someone commits something
that you are
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
Huh? No way. We're all adults here. If someone commits something
that you are uncomfortable with, bring it up on the list. There's
no reason for any ASF project to be R-T-C, IMHO. Our voting
rules are sufficient enough to protect against bogus
On Sat, 2002-11-23 at 12:19, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
+* The 'modules/experimental' tree will evaporate soon. Anything
+ in the development branch should be located under it's eventual
+ home (such as modules/cache/.)
34 matches
Mail list logo
