Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 43058 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2004 18:33:48 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2004 18:33:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 70450 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2004 18:33:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 70401 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2004 18:33:11 -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 70313 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2004 18:33:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ares.cs.Virginia.EDU) (128.143.137.19) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2004 18:33:10 -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 i1IIXBR3027074 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:33:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:33:10 -0500 (EST) From: Cliff Woolley X-X-Sender: jcw5q@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30?? In-Reply-To: <1077125684.1612.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <200402181428.i1IESoF26809@devsys.jaguNET.com> <1077125684.1612.21.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, 18 Feb 2004, Sander Striker wrote: > In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49 > aswell? +1, but let's make sure to get the mod_usertrack fix finally committed. Jim already committed it to 1.3.x as far as I know, and there's no reason not to commit it to 2.0.x and 2.1.x except I just kept forgetting to do so. --Cliff