Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 66104 invoked by uid 500); 17 Jul 2003 14:01:49 -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 66020 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2003 14:01:49 -0000 Message-ID: <039a01c34c6b$e89ed1c0$7500a8c0@goliath> From: "David Reid" To: References: <20030717110757.GE8351@mirror.positive-internet.com> <200307171243.h6HChPO04285@devsys.jaguNET.com> <20030717124946.GH8351@mirror.positive-internet.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:01:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Let's release 1.3.28... david ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thom May" To: ; Cc: Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:49 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH][1.3] Segfault in mod_proxy > * Jim Jagielski (jim@jaguNET.com) wrote : > > Thom May wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > Hmmm... I wonder if we should hold off on 1.3.28 then. I'm > > leaning towards releasing 1.3.28 as-is, and us placing this > > in patches/ (and of course, being committed to 1.3.29-dev)... > > > > Any objections? > I don't see that we should hold off 1.3.28, but maybe bring up the timescale > for .29 a bit afterwards. So yes, +1. > (Sorry for bringing this up today, but we litterally only found and fixed it > late last night) > Cheers > -Thom >