httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src CHANGES
Date Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:57:52 GMT
I'll repost the patch as the first one had an omission (that's what you get
for having difrferent trees and working too late!).

david

----- Original Message -----
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@lnd.com>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src CHANGES


>
> Does anyone else have an interest in releasing 1.3.13 and
> taking this off our plate?  2.0 general release won't roll till
> at least October, if then.  I wouldn't even mind seeing 2.0-beta 1
> roll at ApacheCon Europe, as long as the users have something in
> their hands.  Based on the state of discussions and the serious
> consideration all of the filter patchers are putting into their
> respective designs though, this won't be resolved instantly.
>
> I'm suggesting Friday.  That gives us two days to decide for the
> defaulted ServerName where we will log it and what situations
> will be logged.
>
> My other question was never answered, is there someone who can roll
> the 1.3.13 binary Win32 release with the existing tools?  With the
> hold console open patch, we don't need the batch file thunk, but we
> do need to clean up the shortcut names so they are less confusing.
>
> This would be the time to speak up if there are any late concerns,
> but regardless this should roll very, very soon.
>
> Bill
>
> Also, to David;
>
> > From: David Reid [mailto:dreid@jetnet.co.uk]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 12:45 PM
> >
> > Can we get the changes for BeOS in?
>
> What's the status?  Approved?  And what code paths does it affect?
>
> I ask since if it affects the core, Roy has very serious reservations.
>
> I have no objections, but am in no position to test the changes.
>
> > From: "Bill Stoddard" <reddrum@attglobal.net>
> > To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
> >
> > > +1 on releasing next week.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > > I think this wraps it... there are a few testers still bashing.
> > > >
> > > > Would have polled again for votes, but having another handful of
> > > > apbugs duplicate reports in my inbox drove me over the edge :)
> > > > All we need is a "Win32 services were radically overhauled in
> > > > 1.3.13, please download it and try to reproduce your
> > problem" button.
> > > >
> > > > I can't find a place to document --ntservice that won't confuse
> > > > the user.  Since there are no suggestions, I've popped it from the
> > > > showstoppers queue.  It's similar to the -Z opt, and that is also
> > > > undocumented since it doesn't apply to the user themselves.
> > > >
> > > > If we can reach an agreement on the defaulted ServerName messages
> > > > (remembering the logs aren't opened when we find_fqdn() ) then we
> > > > should be ready to roll.
> > > >
> > > > Arguments pro/con?  Anything missing?  Anyone want to
> > choose a date?
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > > >
> > > > > wrowe       00/07/03 08:24:25
> > > > >
> > > > >   Index: STATUS
> > > > >
===================================================================
> > > > >        * Resolve the status message that the ServerName has been
overridden.
> > > > >            Consensus says this should not appear to the user's
console, but
> > > > >            might be an appropriate information entry to log.  The
problem is
> > > > >            that we resolve this before log files are open.
Resolutions?
> > > > >   +        Jeff Tarwick is reviewing.
>
>


Mime
View raw message