httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brad Nicholes" <>
Subject Re: Any 1.3.30 tarball feeback??
Date Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:36:19 GMT
If you are going to retag, can you also include the
htdocs/manual/netware.html patch (r1.9) that I committed last week. 
This doc change describes the new Netware makefiles that made it into
1.3.30, but the doc didn't.


Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions 

>>> Monday, April 12, 2004 1:30:19 PM >>>
Hmmm... I feel that this is safe... If you commit I'll
reTAG and reroll.

PS: The real reason I don't think we should toss the tag
     is that this only affect Win people, a small minority
     in the 1.3 world. So the diffs between the current
     tarball (should it leak) and this one would be
     minimal and limited to Win people.

On Apr 12, 2004, at 3:06 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> At 12:33 PM 4/12/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Any comments on the 1.3.30 release candidate tarball?
> The mod_rewrite.dsw was patched to find the ws2_32.lib required
> when we modified rewrite.  Unfortunately, the .mak file was not
> updated at the same time.  IDE builds (what I tested a week ago)
> work just fine, but command line builds on win32 were broke.
> My inclination, if nobody disagrees, is to commit the .mak file
> updates and push the tag, rerolling those files into the 1.3.30
> and including them as fixed in the .msi/.exe win32 installers.
> Being derrived files which are nothing more than gatekeepers (it
> or it doesn't, and does not change functionality) I'm not seeing a 
> reason
> to toss this tag.
> Thoughts?
> Bill
  Jim Jagielski   [|]   [|]

     "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
            will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson

View raw message