Done: r1439404
On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:21 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 23, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/23/2013 11:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
iirc, there were people who did not like that :)
>
Apologies for my email client apparently adding an in-reply-to which was
not intended. This seems to have caused some difficulties for some
people reading this vote as a part of the discussion thread, which it
was not.
As a result, some people may not have had seen the opportunity to vote,
and the
Oh, a vote deep in the middle of a discussion thread :-(
nd
On Monday 28 January 2013 14:25:09 Daniel Gruno wrote:
> With the clock passing 13:20 GMT, the voting has ended, and been
> tallied. There was some concern about the DNS solution in the proposal,
> which has been adjusted to a subdirecto
With the clock passing 13:20 GMT, the voting has ended, and been
tallied. There was some concern about the DNS solution in the proposal,
which has been adjusted to a subdirectory instead (and all URLs on the
old site has been adjusted to use relative hrefs), and with no
objections to that, the vote
Hi,
if you use CacheRoot which does not exist or where httpd does not have
permissions to write, then the caching does not work and there is no
error message in log in this case.
This makes detection of this situation and further debugging harder,
because to find out what's going on, you have to