From dev-return-40353-apmail-httpd-dev-archive=httpd.apache.org@httpd.apache.org Wed Dec 10 17:42:56 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 6897 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2003 17:42:56 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Dec 2003 17:42:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 66860 invoked by uid 500); 10 Dec 2003 17:42:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 66819 invoked by uid 500); 10 Dec 2003 17:42:42 -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 66799 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2003 17:42:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ares.cs.Virginia.EDU) (128.143.137.19) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Dec 2003 17:42:42 -0000 Received: from cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU (cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU [128.143.137.16]) by ares.cs.Virginia.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.10/UVACS-2003031900) with ESMTP id hBAHghYX016344 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:42:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:42:43 -0500 (EST) From: Cliff Woolley X-X-Sender: jcw5q@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 CHANGES In-Reply-To: <1071056376.1565.614.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <3FD608BA.7080103@stason.org> <20031209015821.12851.qmail@minotaur.apache.org> <3FD5A621.807@attglobal.net> <3FD608BA.7080103@stason.org> <5.2.0.9.2.20031209143315.02795eb8@pop3.rowe-clan.net> <3FD650F6.9090002@stason.org> <3FD6877E.3070209@stason.org> <20031209205346.C20846@lyra.org> <3FD703A9.3060805@attglobal.net> <1071056376.1565.614.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Sander Striker wrote: > In any case, I think that all 2.0 patches deserve explicit eyeballing, > no matter how trivial. Fine... > I agree that the whole STATUS route is totally > overkill for trivial patches as these. /that/ is what I meant. :-) --JC