Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 34211 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2005 21:26:21 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 31 Jan 2005 21:26:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 78677 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jan 2005 21:26:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 78646 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jan 2005 21:26:17 -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 78633 invoked by uid 99); 31 Jan 2005 21:26:17 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from relay2.ptc.com (HELO relay2.ptc.com) (12.11.148.122) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:26:16 -0800 Received: from unknown (HELO HQ-EXFE3.ptcnet.ptc.com) (132.253.201.80) by relay2.ptc.com with ESMTP; 31 Jan 2005 16:27:00 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.88,167,1102309200"; d="scan'208"; a="8644191:sNHT15323424" Received: from [132.253.10.105] ([132.253.10.105]) by HQ-EXFE3.ptcnet.ptc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:26:10 -0500 Message-ID: <41FEA271.1070503@ptc.com> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:26:09 -0600 From: Jess Holle User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.53? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2005 21:26:10.0310 (UTC) FILETIME=[7B9DD260:01C507DB] X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I'd love to see the LDAP socket timeout configuration stuff make it in for 2.0.53! -- Jess Holle Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Any opposition to doing a tag and roll of 2.0.53 soon? (Yes, I > volunteer to be RM.) How about targetting next Tuesday (2/8) for > 2.0.53? I can lay down the candidate tarball on Friday morning, so > whatever backports are merged by then make it. =) > > Do we want closure on Jeff's proxy chunking patch for 2.0.53? -- justin >