Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Message-ID: <004e01c0dfdb$70442580$6401a8c0@apache>
From: "Bill Stoddard" <bill@wstoddard.com>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
References: <020501c0dfad$8f5ee0f0$bd431b09@sashimi>
 <3B053949.14AB3235@sharp.fm> <011001c0dfb5$79ee0310$94c0b0d0@roweclan.net>
 <026c01c0dfb8$09d4a040$bd431b09@sashimi>
 <00b301c0dfd2$c9428540$94c0b0d0@roweclan.net>
 <03ea01c0dfd8$504cbbf0$bd431b09@sashimi>
Subject: Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:45:05 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> > From: "Bill Stoddard" <bill@wstoddard.com>
> > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 11:31 AM
> >
> >
> > > The tree is tagged. We are on 2.0.19-dev.  Commit away :-)
> >
> > This didn't answer the question below, did we toss proxy into the tarball?
> >
>
> No. I rolled the tarball before I saw the request to add proxy.
>
> > I'm -1 on releasing this tarball upon the world without rolling in the
> efforts
> > of our proxy hackers!
>

Lest you think I am being unreasonable... My time to work on the server today and this weekend is
very limited. I saw a nice opportunity to tag what I believe is a good verion of Apache 2.0 and I
did not want to let the opportunity pass.  If you can get mod_proxy in before the tree goes to hell
again, I would be +1 on tagging 2.0.19 and releasing that instead of 2.0.18.

Bill