Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 37848 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2006 20:29:08 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 23 Jan 2006 20:29:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 71745 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jan 2006 20:29:04 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 71584 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jan 2006 20:29:03 -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: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 71573 invoked by uid 99); 23 Jan 2006 20:29:03 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:29:03 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [209.133.199.10] (HELO jimsys.jagunet.com) (209.133.199.10) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:29:02 -0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jimsys.jagunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4D28BE8E5 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:28:42 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) In-Reply-To: <20060123034203.GA25609@dochas.stdlib.net> References: <20060123034203.GA25609@dochas.stdlib.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <49885E2D-09E2-493A-AE31-033280C6F234@jaguNET.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jim Jagielski Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.56 ? Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:28:41 -0500 To: dev@httpd.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Jan 22, 2006, at 10:42 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: > So > I'm volunteering to RM 2.0.56. > +1 > > Another stalled cgid patch is the solaris autoconf patch. It would be > nice to get the newer one in (It's referenced in STATUS). So I'd > like to > remove Justin's original patch proposal and put in a new one. Any > objections? > +1 on both; STATUS updated to reflect :)