Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 45341 invoked by uid 500); 30 Aug 2001 13:53:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 45328 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2001 13:53:38 -0000 From: "Peter J. Cranstone" To: Subject: RE: 2.0.26? Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:53:36 -0600 Message-ID: <559F81690C371C40A769F8591A0DA62006E4AA@es1.ehyperspace.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <559F81690C371C40A769F8591A0DA620073414@es1.ehyperspace.com> Importance: Normal X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1609 BeOS just got sold to Palm... It's unlikely it's going to become a mainstream OS anytime soon. Peter -----Original Message----- From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:cliffwoolley@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 10:19 PM To: dev@httpd.apache.org; David Reid Subject: Re: 2.0.26? On 29 Aug 2001, Ian Holsman wrote: > should we re-roll&tar 26 (which would include a patch to worker and > ldap_cache, some NW fixes and the apr-dbm change) > > or just re-tag the 2 files modified as 25 and re tar? It'd be nice if it built on BeOS. ::prod, prod:: :-) I vote for 26 tomorrow midday to fix these issues. I'll volunteer to RM since Ryan's already done it once in 24 hours. =-) --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley cliffwoolley@yahoo.com Charlottesville, VA