From dev-return-13851-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Tue Mar 08 22:26:32 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 642 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2005 22:26:31 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Mar 2005 22:26:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 84585 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2005 22:26:30 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 84544 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2005 22:26:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 84530 invoked by uid 99); 8 Mar 2005 22:26:30 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from devsys.jaguNET.com (HELO devsys.jaguNET.com) (209.133.192.6) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:26:29 -0800 Received: (from jim@localhost) by devsys.jaguNET.com (8.11.7a/jag-2.6) id j28MQ7Z24877; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:26:07 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Jagielski Message-Id: <200503082226.j28MQ7Z24877@devsys.jaguNET.com> Subject: Re: 1.2? Fixes to libapr[util...].dll version resource To: justin@erenkrantz.com (Justin Erenkrantz) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:26:04 -0500 (EST) Cc: wrowe@rowe-clan.net (William A. Rowe Jr.), dev@apr.apache.org Reply-To: jim@jaguNET.com In-Reply-To: <19DC23C4B8F479ACFB3DBA95@st-augustin.ics.uci.edu> from "Justin Erenkrantz" at Mar 08, 2005 02:07:21 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > --On Monday, March 7, 2005 10:47 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." > wrote: > > > I'd committed a patch to fix the version resource tag, it seems > > we were broken when trying to build non-dev flavors of the .dll's. > > > > What's consensus? Do we make the next release 1.2.0, admitting > > this was just borked in 1.1.x and prior, or do we do a point bump > > release 1.1.2 or whatnot? > > I would go for 1.1.1 as I don't believe we're ready for a 1.2.0 that > includes apr_dbd just yet. So, I think you should just backport your > changes to the 1.1.x branch so that Win32 builds properly and then we can > roll out 1.1.1. -- justin > +1 -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else."