Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 49492 invoked by uid 500); 15 Sep 2002 06:52:24 -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 49479 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2002 06:52:24 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: cancer.clove.org: jerenk set sender to jerenkrantz@apache.org using -f Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 23:52:36 -0700 From: Justin Erenkrantz To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Desire for 2.1 was Re: mod_custom_log exits too late? Message-ID: <20020915065236.GH18172@apache.org> Mail-Followup-To: Justin Erenkrantz , dev@httpd.apache.org References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020915013112.01ffedb8@pop3.rowe-clan.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 02:40:35AM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote: > I've been willing to accept MMN bumps thus far because 1.3 also had a > number of MMN bumps in its infancy. But we're rapidly approaching the > point where 2.0.x needs to pick an MMN (and all that that entails) and > stick with it, IMHO. Then, we as a group need to open 2.1 when we do that. So far, there doesn't seem to be support for that. In fact, it seems there are lots of people against a 2.1 tree. -- justin