Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On 11/04/2017 12:51 PM, Steffen wrote: > Thanks Graham, very helpful. > > Question left is when/where is patches/2.4.x and patches/trunk used ? Free > to use ? You do not mention them in the process. > > Resume: > > CTR: trunk > RTC: branches/2.4.x > RTC: 2.5.0-alpha I don't see a

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Nov 5, 2017 11:49, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: Suggested reading; it is interesting to me how many participants of these threads are now absent, and of those who remain, who are sitting on opposite positions of what they held before;

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Nov 5, 2017 12:21, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: Sorry Bill, but that's not right. trunk is not a "branch" that directly leads to a releasable branch. Its simply not. It was not intended to be. You cannot now claim that any inability, or concern, about releasing a RTC "sandbox"

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On 2017-11-05 06:08, Graham Leggett wrote: > Your desire for us to host your private feature branches, and hand out logins > to our infrastructure to people who openly profess not to care about our > projects is not something I would like to see encouraged. You still do not understand what I am

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

> On Nov 4, 2017, at 11:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > It is safer. It is incredibly time consuming to effectively perform > a full audit of the state of trunk vs current. If we were to take this > approach, it seems necessary to revert all of the unaccepted > changes

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

> On Nov 4, 2017, at 11:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >> > > It is safer. It is incredibly time consuming to effectively perform > a full audit of the state of trunk vs current. If we were to take this > approach, it seems necessary to revert all of the unaccepted >

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Nov 5, 2017 10:47, "Eric Covener" wrote: On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 12:53 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Nov 4, 2017 23:18, "Jacob Champion" wrote: > > On Nov 4, 2017 8:44 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: > >>>

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 12:53 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Nov 4, 2017 23:18, "Jacob Champion" wrote: > > On Nov 4, 2017 8:44 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: > >>> Will it be a fork of latest 2.4.x and trunk things will have to

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

> On Nov 4, 2017, at 6:43 PM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek > wrote: > > On 2017-11-04 18:25, Graham Leggett wrote: >> If you aren’t willing to do the four things you’ve mentioned above, >> your code has pretty much disqualified itself from consideration, and >> what you want is

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

> On Nov 4, 2017, at 6:03 AM, Steffen wrote: > > Soon we have: > > branches 2.4.x > trunk > 2.5.0-alpha > patches/2.4.x > patches/trunk > > Please a procedure: where and when do we apply patches/fixes. IMO, the ones w/ the LEAST clarity are the ones related to

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

On 05 Nov 2017, at 4:01 AM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek wrote: >> No, you expressed a definite unwillingness to follow our process, >> which starts by creating a patch for trunk. > > I think you misunderstood, at least partly. I don't really care, because > I don't have time to

Bug report for Apache httpd-2 [2017/11/05]

+---+ | Bugzilla Bug ID | | +-+ | | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned