William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'd like to see new tarballs rolled soonish, given the single significant
bug that was disclosed earlier today.
Obviously most mass-vhosters are capable of compiling their own binary,
so providing the seperate-pid-table patch (whoever gets around to writing
one)
On May 30, 2007, at 1:56 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'd like to see new tarballs rolled soonish, given the single
significant
bug that was disclosed earlier today.
Obviously most mass-vhosters are capable of compiling their own
binary,
so providing the seperate-pid-table patch
On May 29, 2007, at 10:56 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I volunteer to roll 1.3 when it's ready, since Sander offered to
roll 2.2
(and perhaps 2.0?)
I'll be happy to RM both.
S.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE
On Wed, 30 May 2007 11:31:02 +0200
Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the fact that we wanted to do this about 4 weeks ago anyway +1
on rolling. But we should wait for a seperate-pid-table patch,
because releasing now with the security statement out and no patch
for at least the
On May 30, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
On May 29, 2007, at 10:56 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I volunteer to roll 1.3 when it's ready, since Sander offered to
roll 2.2
(and perhaps 2.0?)
I'll be happy to RM both.
I'd like to, but my time will be sporadic enough the next
On 05/30/2007 09:37 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
We also have remaining bugfixes that *should* go in.
PR#39710 is simple enough to review, and another release without
Good reminder. I just casted my vote for the backport. So lets hope
that we get the missing +1.
fixing that would be a huge WTF???
I'd like to see new tarballs rolled soonish, given the single significant
bug that was disclosed earlier today.
Obviously most mass-vhosters are capable of compiling their own binary,
so providing the seperate-pid-table patch (whoever gets around to writing
one) resolves any immediate urgency.
