Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 95439 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2007 12:02:48 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Dec 2007 12:02:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 20640 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2007 12:02:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 20618 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2007 12:02:29 -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 20607 invoked by uid 99); 3 Dec 2007 12:02:29 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:02:29 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [195.233.129.142] (HELO rat01037.dc-ratingen.de) (195.233.129.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:02:29 +0000 Received: from rat01047.dc-ratingen.de (rat01047_e0 [195.233.128.119]) by rat01037.dc-ratingen.de (Switch-3.1.4/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id lB3C26rK010519 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:02:06 +0100 (MET) Received: from avoexs02.internal.vodafone.com ([145.230.4.135]) by rat01047.dc-ratingen.de (Switch-3.1.4/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id lB3C27tU002020 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:02:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from VF-MBX11.internal.vodafone.com ([145.230.5.20]) by avoexs02.internal.vodafone.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:02:08 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ? Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:02:07 +0100 Message-ID: <99EA83DCDE961346AFA9B5EC33FEC08B05B286@VF-MBX11.internal.vodafone.com> In-Reply-To: <474C7D70.4070500@apache.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ? Thread-Index: AcgxM9i26RKIHiGpShCYGRV1TDlzegEb9iUg From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pl=FCm=2C_R=FCdiger=2C_VF-Group?= To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2007 12:02:08.0677 (UTC) FILETIME=[54636D50:01C835A4] X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Ruediger Pluem=20 > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2007 21:26 > An: dev@httpd.apache.org > Betreff: Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ? >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 11/27/2007 07:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > With APR now out, I think we're close to releasing 1.3.40 and > > 2.2.7... Anyone opposed with that gameplan? >=20 > Sounds very good for me. I think there is only one issue left=20 > that needs fixing: >=20 > The fd leaking on Windows for which Bill proposed a backport=20 > and I added a > comment. Meanwhile I withdrew my comment / objection as I could not follow my own arguments during a second review. I guess I missed one dup2 call on the way what lead to my initial comment. So I am now +1 on the proposal. So from my point of view only the review of the low hanging fruits in the STATUS file is between us and 2.2.7. Regards R=FCdiger