On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 9:13 AM Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
>Third time is a charm! Please find below the proposed release tarball
> and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
Just as a footnote to 2.4.46, as mentioned before mod_lua won't com
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 9:13 AM Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
>Third time is a charm! Please find below the proposed release tarball
> and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
&
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 01:48:08PM +0200, Rainer Jung wrote:
> GDB info (sporadic) Solaris shutdown crashes during OpenSSL shutdown in
> mod_watchdog:
Awesome level of testing as usual, thanks Rainer!
I see similar crashes with mod_watchdog active for 2.4 prefork. I think
the trigger is also
Am 01.08.2020 um 16:13 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
Hi, all;
Third time is a charm! Please find below the proposed release tarball
and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.46:
[X] +1
[x] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
[ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
[ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
Debian 10 build.
On 8/1/2020 7:13 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
Hi, all;
Third time is a charm! Please find below the proposed release tarball
and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.46:
[ ] +1
For my own +1... tested under the following versions:
system:
kernel:
name: Linux
release: 4.19.0-10-amd64
version: #1 SMP Debian 4.19.132-1 (2020-07-24)
machine: x86_64
libraries:
openssl: "1.1.1g"
openldap: "2.4.50"
apr: "1.7.0"
On 8/1/20 4:13 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
> Third time is a charm! Please find below the proposed release tarball
> and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candid
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 10:14 AM Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
>Third time is a charm! Please find below the proposed release tarball
> and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to rel
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 4:14 PM Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarball as 2.4.46:
[X] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
All good in my testing, thanks Daniel for RMing.
On 01/08/2020 16:13, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
[X] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
Passed on fedroa32 x86_64.
--
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 09:13:29AM -0500, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
> Third time is a charm! Please find below the proposed release tarball
> and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next f
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 4:14 PM Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
>Third time is a charm! Please find below the proposed release tarball
> and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release thi
On 02/08/2020 00:13, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
> Third time is a charm! Please find below the proposed release tarball
> and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candid
WIN32 APR 1.7.0 APR-UTIL 1.6.1 with Analyses
Warning C6386 \apr\time\win32\timestr.c 189 Buffer overrun while
writing to 'new_format': the writable size is 'max+11' bytes, but 'j' bytes
might be written.
Warning C26451 \apr\time\win32\time.c 239 Arithmetic overflow: Using
Le 01/08/2020 à 16:13, Daniel Ruggeri a écrit :
Hi, all;
Third time is a charm! Please find below the proposed release tarball
and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.46:
[X] +1
Date in announcement is still :
September 21, 2018
> Op 1 aug. 2020 om 16:13 heeft Daniel Ruggeri het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> Hi, all;
>Third time is a charm! Please find below the proposed release tarball
> and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/de
Hi, all;
Third time is a charm! Please find below the proposed release tarball
and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.46:
[ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
[ ] +0
;> Concerning lua I'd say the fix(es) for 5.4.0 need a bit more testing.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rainer
>>
>> Am 30.07.2020 um 22:26 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
>>> Hi, all;
>>> I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
&g
>enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
>>which have precedence for holding up a release.
>>
>>To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on the
>>vine.
>>
>>I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
- End Message -
all;
I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
which have precedence for holding up a release.
To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on the
vine.
I will roll 2.4.
Rainer Jung in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:36:16
+0200):
>Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
>right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
AFAIK, Steffen is not working on them and nobody else from the
Apachelounge or Apachehaus
+1
> On Jul 31, 2020, at 9:41 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:37 AM Rainer Jung wrote:
>>
>> Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
>> right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
>>
>
> Not me. I don't think we should wait on
enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
which have precedence for holding up a release.
To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on
the vine.
I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
IMHO, good to go
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:37 AM Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
> right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
>
Not me. I don't think we should wait on them.
> The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:37 PM Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
> right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
>
> The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro argument)
> IMHO was already fixed by Christophe
easily fixable warnings
which have precedence for holding up a release.
To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on the vine.
I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
doo.fr> wrote:
>> >
>> > I wouldn't say it is a show stopper, but I thought that we had a travis
>> job for that.
>> > Apparently, it is on trunk only (see r1879370 which is not backported,
>> maybe on purpose)
>>
>> I agree that it's not a show-stopp
Hi, all;
I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
which have precedence for holding up a release.
To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on the vine.
I will roll
ing that
> seems easy to fix and, considering that (1) we want to release the
> best possible version as we can and (2) there is quite a bit of
> time between releases, I wouldn't be opposed if the RM decided to
> skip 2.4.45 and go w/ 2.4.46.
>
>
> Agreed. A
ntly, it is on trunk only (see r1879370 which is not backported,
> maybe on purpose)
>
> I agree that it's not a show-stopper but it is something that seems easy
> to fix and, considering that (1) we want to release the best possible
> version as we can and (2) there is quite a
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:26 AM Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
>Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarbal
job for that.
Apparently, it is on trunk only (see r1879370 which is not backported,
maybe on purpose)
I agree that it's not a show-stopper but it is something that seems
easy to fix and, considering that (1) we want to release the best
possible version as we can and (2) there is quite a bit
t;> I reported here a few times. APR is warning free, thanks to Yann.
>
> Apr-util is a library from the APR project, not httpd, and so warnings from
> APR wouldn’t be relevant for an httpd release, or for the httpd project.
>
> That said there is definite need for more Win
it's not a show-stopper but it is something that seems easy to fix
and, considering that (1) we want to release the best possible version as we
can and (2) there is quite a bit of time between releases, I wouldn't be
opposed if the RM decided to skip 2.4.45 and go w/ 2.4.46.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:55:09AM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> I've not tested yet, but looking at Steffen Land compilation error logs on
> Windows, I've been surprised by:
>
> Warning C4003 modules\proxy\mod_proxy_fcgi.c 180 not enough
> arguments for function-like macro
On 29/07/2020 17:26, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
[X] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
Tested on fedora32 x86_64.
--
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
Le 29/07/2020 à 17:26, Daniel Ruggeri a écrit :
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.45:
[ ] +1: It's not just good
rms, now it
> looks bad on Windows.
>
> I reported here a few times. APR is warning free, thanks to Yann.
Apr-util is a library from the APR project, not httpd, and so warnings from APR
wouldn’t be relevant for an httpd release, or for the httpd project.
That said there is definite n
HTTPd 2.4.45
Warning C4267 modules\http\http_filters.c 284 '+=': conversion from
'size_t' to 'apr_int32_t', possible loss of data
Warning C4267 modules\http\http_filters.c 473 '=': conversion from
'size_t' to 'int', possible loss of data
Warning C4267
For my own vote: +1
Tested platform info follows. Same note as yesterday where lua was kept
back to 5.3 rather than 5.4.
system:
kernel:
name: Linux
release: 4.19.0-9-amd64
version: #1 SMP Debian 4.19.118-2+deb10u1 (2020-06-07)
machine: x86_64
libraries:
openssl
On 7/29/20 5:26 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarball as 2.4.45:
>
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:26:27AM -0500, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarba
> Am 29.07.2020 um 17:26 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri :
>
> Hi, all;
>Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tar
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.45:
[ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
[ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
[ ] -1
On 7/28/2020 12:51 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarball as 2.4.
his
> one, I don't see harm in incorporating the change and rerolling. Doubly
> so since votes are already in for the change and all that. I'll re-roll
> the release tarball once you confirm.
>
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
>
> On 7/29/2020 7:02 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>>
Hi, Stefan;
Since version numbers are cheap and we've had only one vote on this
one, I don't see harm in incorporating the change and rerolling. Doubly
so since votes are already in for the change and all that. I'll re-roll
the release tarball once you confirm.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
On 7/29/2020
I'll hold off testing and voting until we hear from the RM on whether this
release is DOA or not...
> On Jul 29, 2020, at 8:02 AM, Stefan Eissing
> wrote:
>
> -1.
>
> I have to apologise. I missed an important change in HTTP/2 that I like to
> get in the release. T
-1.
I have to apologise. I missed an important change in HTTP/2 that I like to get
in the release. This is about removing support for an abandoned http-wg draft
that we do not want any longer in our server.
Will do the changes right away and let you know when I am done.
Again, sorry
+1 from me based on below results
NOTE: httpd does not build against the latest version of LUA (5.4), but
that major bump was just released a few weeks ago.
system:
kernel:
name: Linux
release: 4.19.0-9-amd64
version: #1 SMP Debian 4.19.118-2+deb10u1 (2020-06-07)
machine
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.44:
[ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
[ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
[ ] -1
ill be easier, so we should be aware, at time of voting
> on the release, how much (thoroughly) it is actually being tested
> pre-release...
The test suite passes though I needed to hack the Apache::Test stuff to
load mod_apreq.so which it doesn't seem to do OOTB.
But I am stuck on actually prod
Anything I'm missing?
In theory, no. In practice I remember it being very difficult to test
properly last time I tried to RM, with a recent Perl and httpd.
I can't imagine it will be easier, so we should be aware, at time of
voting on the release, how much (thoroughly) it is actually
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 1:04 PM Eric Covener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 6:29 AM Joe Orton wrote:
> >
> > The latest release of libapreq2 (v2.13) has an outstanding security
> > issue, CVE-2019-12412, which was fixed in apreq trunk at
> > https://svn.apache
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 6:29 AM Joe Orton wrote:
>
> The latest release of libapreq2 (v2.13) has an outstanding security
> issue, CVE-2019-12412, which was fixed in apreq trunk at
> https://svn.apache.org/r1866760 and subsequently assigned a CVE name
> when a Debian user &
The latest release of libapreq2 (v2.13) has an outstanding security
issue, CVE-2019-12412, which was fixed in apreq trunk at
https://svn.apache.org/r1866760 and subsequently assigned a CVE name
when a Debian user & maintainer noticed it was a security issue.
libapreq2 trunk was fo
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:41 PM Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
> William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:07
> -0500):
> >I'm making no attempt to build against the no-longer-supported msldap API
> >nor openldap which doesn't support building on windows.
>
> Maybe I am missing
William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:07
-0500):
>I'm making no attempt to build against the no-longer-supported msldap API
>nor openldap which doesn't support building on windows.
Maybe I am missing the point, but at least OpenLDAP 2.4.47 builds fine
on Windows:
On 3/26/2020 9:50 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarball as 2.4.43:
>
our's are still the .dsp based builds, right? I can confirm also on
> > the CMake flavor.
>
> Thanks, Bill. Shall this response be considered a +1 for the purposes of
> the release vote?
>
Hi Daniel, I'm not a PMC member, just observing that in my *snapshot*
refresh
to https://github
:22 schrieb Rainer Jung :
>
> Am 26.03.2020 um 15:50 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
>> Hi, all;
>>Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to
Am 26.03.2020 um 15:50 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.43:
[X] +1: It's not just good
> Well gmake test and gmake check don't seem to do anything.
>
> Has the whole test suite moved to a perl thing ?
Not moved but: yes, the test suite is
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/test/framework/trunk
On 2020-03-28 16:24, Gregg Smith wrote:
On 3/26/2020 7:50 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball
nks, Bill. Shall this response be considered a +1 for the purposes of
the release vote?
--
Daniel Ruggeri
On 3/26/2020 9:50 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarball as 2.4.43:
>
On 3/26/2020 7:50 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.43:
[X] +1: It's not just good, it's
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:50 AM Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
>Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarbal
Le 26/03/2020 à 15:50, Daniel Ruggeri a écrit :
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.43:
[X] +1: It's not just good
On 2020-03-26 10:50, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.43:
[ ] +1: It's not just good, it's
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 12:34 PM Steffen wrote:
> +1 All fine on Windows.
>
Your's are still the .dsp based builds, right? I can confirm also on the
CMake flavor.
On 2020-03-27 13:09, Giovanni Bechis wrote:
On 3/26/20 3:50 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball
+1 All fine on Windows.
Steffen
> Op 26 mrt. 2020 om 15:50 heeft Daniel Ruggeri het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> Hi, all;
>Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOT
On 3/26/20 3:50 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarball as 2.4.43:
>
iel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
>Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarball as 2.4.43:
> [ ] +1: It's not
ver the next few days to release this
>> candidate tarball as 2.4.43:
>
> [X] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
>
> All good on my Debian(s) 9, 10 and 11.
> Tested with event, worker and prefork.
>
> Thanks Daniel!
>
> Regards,
> Yann.
On 26/03/2020 15:50, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
[X] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
Tested on fedora31.
Thanks Daniel
--
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:50 PM Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarball as 2.4.43:
[X] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
All good on my Debian(s) 9, 10 and 11.
Tested with event, worker and prefork.
Than
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 09:50:12AM -0500, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarba
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.43:
[ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
[ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
[ ] -1
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 5:31 PM Christophe JAILLET
wrote:
>
> Proposal made in r1875516 would also be nice to have in the next release
> if a few of us have the knowledge and time to test and vote.
Backported now ;)
Regards,
Yann.
On 3/23/2020 8:18 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
Hi, all;
Per the issues surfaced/fixed, I'll go ahead and declare this release
as dead-on-the vine. I'll target another T later this week, hopefully
after the discussion around OpenSSL versioning plays out.
How about Thursday?
+1
Le 23/03/2020 à 16:18, Daniel Ruggeri a écrit :
Hi, all;
Per the issues surfaced/fixed, I'll go ahead and declare this release
as dead-on-the vine. I'll target another T later this week, hopefully
after the discussion around OpenSSL versioning plays out.
How about Thursday?
Hi
Am 23.03.2020 um 16:18 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
Hi, all;
Per the issues surfaced/fixed, I'll go ahead and declare this release
as dead-on-the vine. I'll target another T later this week, hopefully
after the discussion around OpenSSL versioning plays out.
How about Thursday?
Works
Hi, all;
Per the issues surfaced/fixed, I'll go ahead and declare this release
as dead-on-the vine. I'll target another T later this week, hopefully
after the discussion around OpenSSL versioning plays out.
How about Thursday?
--
Daniel Ruggeri
On 3/19/2020 9:45 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote
Based on this, I change my vote to -1
> On Mar 19, 2020, at 11:19 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:45 AM Daniel Ruggeri <mailto:drugg...@primary.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, all;
>>Please find below the proposed release tarball and si
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:19 AM Eric Covener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:45 AM Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> >
> > Hi, all;
> > Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
> >
+1: macOS 10.14.6, Xcode 11.3.1: No regressions - Perl test framework
Will try to test on CentOS 6-8 today
> On Mar 19, 2020, at 10:45 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:45 AM Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarbal
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.42:
[ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
[ ] +0: Let's have a talk
On 8/9/2019 8:50 AM, sebb wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 14:40, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>> Hi, all;
>> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>>
>> I would like to call a VOTE over the next f
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 14:10, Steve Hay wrote:
>
> Please download, test, and report back on this Apache-Test 1.42
> release candidate.
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/perl/Apache-Test-1.42-rc1.tar.gz
>
> MD5 = 2dd753a50d94ee1705
Please download, test, and report back on this Apache-Test 1.42
release candidate.
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/perl/Apache-Test-1.42-rc1.tar.gz
MD5 = 2dd753a50d94ee1705f77039d5da2f3a
SHA1 = c07e19bb63fe5ef845a91fefea58a7c28bfedf34
The only change in this release is:
Fix loading
Hi, all;
It is my pleasure to confirm that we have received enough votes to
PASS the release of httpd-2.4.41! As always, I thank everyone for their
diligence in testing this release and am very happy we caught the minor
regression during 2.4.40 validation cycles to prevent a potentially
Am 09.08.2019 um 15:40 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.41:
[X] +1: It's not just good, it's
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 08:40:38AM -0500, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
>
On 09/08/2019 23:40, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
> tarball as 2.4.41:
>
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 9:40 AM Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
> tarball as 2
Tested:
o macOS 10.14.6, Xcode 10.3 (64bit)
o CentOS 5, 6 (64bit)
o Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (64bit)
All +1: no regressions.
Thanks for RMing!
> On Aug 9, 2019, at 9:40 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatu
501 - 600 of 4444 matches
Mail list logo
