Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 61067 invoked by uid 500); 13 May 2003 17:42:43 -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 61049 invoked from network); 13 May 2003 17:42:42 -0000 Message-ID: <3EC12E87.10302@wstoddard.com> Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:42:31 -0400 From: Bill Stoddard User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Additional candidates for merging back into 2.0? References: <3EC104FD.5040407@wstoddard.com> <20030513153352.GN18402@samizdat.positive-internet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030513153352.GN18402@samizdat.positive-internet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Thom May wrote: >* Bill Stoddard (bill@wstoddard.com) wrote : > > >>These do not show up in the 2.0 STATUS file as candidates for backport. >>Any opinions whether I should get these into the 2.0 STATUS file for votes? >> >> >> >I'm in favour of adding all of these, FWIW. I can add the htpasswd sanity >check to STATUS now, if you want (I was just reviewing it). > Go for it. Bill