Re: New release of libapreq2

2020-02-05 Thread Joseph Schaefer
I’m no longer a part of Apache, sorry.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 31, 2020, at 4:49 AM, p...@cpan.org wrote:
> 
> On Thursday 24 October 2019 20:58:41 Steve Hay wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 15:50,  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday 06 September 2017 08:23:12 Steve Hay wrote:
 On 19 January 2017 at 14:25, Issac Goldstand  wrote:
> That release was canceled due to lack of votes,
>>> 
>>> Hello Issac! Have you released this version on cpan as trial release for 
>>> testing?
>>> 
>>> I have not found it on https://metacpan.org/release/libapreq2 so perl
>>> community have not noticed about it.
>>> 
> but regardless there was
> very little effective difference between that and 2.13 - mostly around
> tests, docs and build scripts.  2.13 should run just fine on 2.4
 
 Somehow, it only came to my attention yesterday that 2.14 never
 officially got released. That's a great shame because 2.13 doesn't
 build out-of-the-box on Windows, at least not with httpd-2.4, whereas
 2.14 does.
 
 Is there any chance of resurrecting it, or else just going for a new
 release numbered 2.15?
>>> 
>>> In svn repository are some fixes for NULL pointer dereference.
>>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/apreq/trunk/?view=log
>>> 
>>> So it would be great to see a new version with these fixes released.
>>> 
>> 
>> +1
> 
> Hello! Could you please do an official release of libapreq2 with
> mentioned fixes which are already in svn?



Re: New release of libapreq2

2020-01-31 Thread pali
On Thursday 24 October 2019 20:58:41 Steve Hay wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 15:50,  wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday 06 September 2017 08:23:12 Steve Hay wrote:
> > > On 19 January 2017 at 14:25, Issac Goldstand  wrote:
> > > > That release was canceled due to lack of votes,
> >
> > Hello Issac! Have you released this version on cpan as trial release for 
> > testing?
> >
> > I have not found it on https://metacpan.org/release/libapreq2 so perl
> > community have not noticed about it.
> >
> > > > but regardless there was
> > > > very little effective difference between that and 2.13 - mostly around
> > > > tests, docs and build scripts.  2.13 should run just fine on 2.4
> > >
> > > Somehow, it only came to my attention yesterday that 2.14 never
> > > officially got released. That's a great shame because 2.13 doesn't
> > > build out-of-the-box on Windows, at least not with httpd-2.4, whereas
> > > 2.14 does.
> > >
> > > Is there any chance of resurrecting it, or else just going for a new
> > > release numbered 2.15?
> >
> > In svn repository are some fixes for NULL pointer dereference.
> > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/apreq/trunk/?view=log
> >
> > So it would be great to see a new version with these fixes released.
> >
> 
> +1

Hello! Could you please do an official release of libapreq2 with
mentioned fixes which are already in svn?


Re: New release of libapreq2 (Was: Re: Question about Apache 2.4 and libapreq2 (Apache2::Request))

2019-10-24 Thread Steve Hay
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 15:50,  wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 06 September 2017 08:23:12 Steve Hay wrote:
> > On 19 January 2017 at 14:25, Issac Goldstand  wrote:
> > > That release was canceled due to lack of votes,
>
> Hello Issac! Have you released this version on cpan as trial release for 
> testing?
>
> I have not found it on https://metacpan.org/release/libapreq2 so perl
> community have not noticed about it.
>
> > > but regardless there was
> > > very little effective difference between that and 2.13 - mostly around
> > > tests, docs and build scripts.  2.13 should run just fine on 2.4
> >
> > Somehow, it only came to my attention yesterday that 2.14 never
> > officially got released. That's a great shame because 2.13 doesn't
> > build out-of-the-box on Windows, at least not with httpd-2.4, whereas
> > 2.14 does.
> >
> > Is there any chance of resurrecting it, or else just going for a new
> > release numbered 2.15?
>
> In svn repository are some fixes for NULL pointer dereference.
> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/apreq/trunk/?view=log
>
> So it would be great to see a new version with these fixes released.
>

+1