On 02/12/2011 15:59, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On 12/1/11 2:02 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 01/12/2011 17:54, Zampani, Michael wrote:
>>> Should this mentioned somewhere on the changelog as a known bug
>>> with a workaround?
>>
>> It already is.
>
> Yes and no: it's in the changelog
2011/12/2 Christopher Schultz :
> Mark,
>
> On 12/1/11 2:02 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 01/12/2011 17:54, Zampani, Michael wrote:
>>> Should this mentioned somewhere on the changelog as a known bug with a
>>> workaround?
>>
>> It already is.
>
> Yes and no: it's in the changelog, but the changelo
Mark,
On 12/1/11 2:02 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 01/12/2011 17:54, Zampani, Michael wrote:
>> Should this mentioned somewhere on the changelog as a known bug with a
>> workaround?
>
> It already is.
Yes and no: it's in the changelog, but the changelog currently published
on the website doesn't
On 01/12/2011 17:54, Zampani, Michael wrote:
> Should this mentioned somewhere on the changelog as a known bug with a
> workaround?
It already is.
Mark
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional
> -Original Message-
> From: bugzi...@apache.org [mailto:bugzi...@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:59 AM
> To: dev@tomcat.apache.org
> Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52259] synchonization issues and dead lock if no
> realm is presented in configuration
>
> https://issues.apach
