Re: Question about APLOGNO
Le 19/07/2014 22:44, William A. Rowe Jr. a écrit : If it violates 80 col formatting style rule, absolutely do not shift the APLOGNO macro to the first line. Sure. Moreover, when submitting patches, I'll take care to only propose things that can be backported easily. Changes relying on other changes, not backported yet, will either be submitted as individual patches or will remain in my tree. Same for changes that could generate conflict when merging other changes, should they be backported one day. Best regards, CJ
Re: Question about APLOGNO
I'd strongly encourage backporting, if accepted on 2.x branch. The APn code exists to find guidance through web, email archives and forum searches. Keeping these consistent between 2.4 and 2.next is crucial. It also ensures further backports apply without a host of future conflicts. Christophe JAILLET christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr wrote: Le 19/07/2014 22:44, William A. Rowe Jr. a écrit : If it violates 80 col formatting style rule, absolutely do not shift the APLOGNO macro to the first line. Sure. Moreover, when submitting patches, I'll take care to only propose things that can be backported easily. Changes relying on other changes, not backported yet, will either be submitted as individual patches or will remain in my tree. Same for changes that could generate conflict when merging other changes, should they be backported one day. Best regards, CJ
Re: Question about APLOGNO
Hi I have proposed for backport for 2.4. See STATUS. http://svn.apache.org/r1611978 http://svn.apache.org/r1612068 should merge without any trouble and should not generate any conflict with code only in trunk, should it be backported one day. What I have submitted and not proposed for backport yet are: http://svn.apache.org/r1611980 -- depends of r1608202 http://svn.apache.org/r1611979 -- depends of r1610814 My may concern is to keep 2.4 and trunk as close as possible, but should I also see what can be backported to 2.2 ? Best regards, CJ Le 20/07/2014 15:25, William A. Rowe Jr. a écrit : I'd strongly encourage backporting, if accepted on 2.x branch. The APn code exists to find guidance through web, email archives and forum searches. Keeping these consistent between 2.4 and 2.next is crucial. It also ensures further backports apply without a host of future conflicts. Christophe JAILLET christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr wrote: Le 19/07/2014 22:44, William A. Rowe Jr. a écrit : If it violates 80 col formatting style rule, absolutely do not shift the APLOGNO macro to the first line. Sure. Moreover, when submitting patches, I'll take care to only propose things that can be backported easily. Changes relying on other changes, not backported yet, will either be submitted as individual patches or will remain in my tree. Same for changes that could generate conflict when merging other changes, should they be backported one day. Best regards, CJ
Re: Question about APLOGNO
Le 20/07/2014 15:45, Marion Christophe JAILLET a écrit : My may concern is to keep 2.4 and trunk as close as possible, but should I also see what can be backported to 2.2 ? s/may/main/
httpd release version confusion re HTTP Server 2.4.10
Has 2.4.10 been released or not ? 1) The front page https://httpd.apache.org/ says Apache httpd 2.4.9 Released https://httpd.apache.org/ 2) The announce page says Apache HTTP Server 2.4.10 Released http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/Announcement2.4.html 3) The httpd-announce mailing list most recent says ANNOUNCE: Apache HTTP Server 2.4.9 Released http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-announce/201403.mbox/browser So the tarball is available for 2.4.10 but is that subject to change or ?? Dennis
Re: httpd release version confusion re HTTP Server 2.4.10
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 1:03 PM, dev d...@cor0.com wrote: Has 2.4.10 been released or not ? 2.4.10 is in the middle of the release process. 2.4.10 was approved but the announcement wasn't sent out while mirrors are being populated. 1) The front page https://httpd.apache.org/ says Apache httpd 2.4.9 Released https://httpd.apache.org/ 2) The announce page says Apache HTTP Server 2.4.10 Released http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/Announcement2.4.html This file is one of those that gets mirrored, so it is updated before the main page. 3) The httpd-announce mailing list most recent says ANNOUNCE: Apache HTTP Server 2.4.9 Released http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-announce/201403.mbox/browser So the tarball is available for 2.4.10 but is that subject to change or ?? Dennis -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/ http://edjective.org/
Re: httpd release version confusion re HTTP Server 2.4.10
On 20 Jul 2014, at 18:03, dev d...@cor0.com wrote: Has 2.4.10 been released or not ? It has been released, but we need to wait for the mirrors to update before formerly announcing the release. Regards, Graham --
Re: httpd release version confusion re HTTP Server 2.4.10
On July 20, 2014 at 1:14 PM Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 18:03, dev d...@cor0.com wrote: Has 2.4.10 been released or not ? It has been released, but we need to wait for the mirrors to update before formerly announcing the release. I see, I just accidentally landed on the moment of announcement at the exact right time? I have not bothered to look in months as I have 2.4.9 in production and I merely thought I wonder if there has been an update over in Apache land... and off I went to look. Gee, I must go out an buy a lottery ticket right away. :-) Dennis
Re: httpd release version confusion re HTTP Server 2.4.10
On 2014-07-20 19:14, Graham Leggett wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 18:03, dev d...@cor0.com wrote: Has 2.4.10 been released or not ? It has been released, but we need to wait for the mirrors to update before formerly announcing the release. Regards, Graham -- Looking at the http://www.apache.org/mirrors/ it seems 248 sites are up to date and 13 are out of date or dead -- olli
Re: httpd release version confusion re HTTP Server 2.4.10
On 21/07/2014 04:40, olli hauer wrote: On 2014-07-20 19:14, Graham Leggett wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 18:03, dev d...@cor0.com wrote: Has 2.4.10 been released or not ? It has been released, but we need to wait for the mirrors to update before formerly announcing the release. Regards, Graham -- Looking at the http://www.apache.org/mirrors/ it seems 248 sites are up to date and 13 are out of date or dead I think the script needs to made slightly more intelligent, if a mirror is 7 days or more out of date, it should be suppressed from viewing, and an automated message to that mirrors maintainer, and 30 days they are removed altogether?
