Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: TOKILEY@aol.com
Message-ID: <ae.1e9cbc99.2937ca5d@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:29:01 EST
Subject: Re: [STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Nov 28 23:45:08 EST 2001
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
CC: Ken.Coar@golux.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


In a message dated 11/29/2001 3:23:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
Ken.Coar@Golux.Com writes:

> > As described by Ken?  Once again, what would he have to do
>  > with that?
>  
>  I just happen to be the chap with the cron job that sends
>  the current STATUS file every Wednesday.  I don't maintain it;
>  that's a shared responsibility (and one of its deficiencies,
>  IMHO, but I've ranted about that before :-).

Then even more apologies are due and are hereby given.

I thought that the 'final editing' of the auto-broadcast
was someone's ongoing task ( yours ).

Then I have no idea who added...

+1 Cliff ( there's now another candidate to be evaluated )

...or why that comment was so ambiguous.

I really did 'miss' a message somewhere and I thought some
guy named Cliff ( Wooley? Doesn't say ) submitted something
for consideration as well and mod_gzip was already 'off' the table.

This impression was then substantiated when a few people from 
the mod_gzip forum who were curious about the status of 
the 'mod_gzip 2.0 submission' queried this forum and got 
absolutely no reply from anyone.

Doesn't matter now...

But is it too much for future reference to ask STATUS file
comments to be a little more explicit? It would help others track
what's really happening there at Apache.

Later...
Kevin