Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 45865 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2008 07:44:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Aug 2008 07:44:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 66957 invoked by uid 500); 19 Aug 2008 07:44:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 66880 invoked by uid 500); 19 Aug 2008 07:44:49 -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 66869 invoked by uid 99); 19 Aug 2008 07:44:49 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:44:49 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.9 required=10.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_06_12,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.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; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:43:53 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jimsys.jaguNET.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832072EBD30E for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:28:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <21EA5205-B37C-4AB7-B561-E4202C40A47D@jaguNET.com> From: Jim Jagielski To: dev@httpd.apache.org In-Reply-To: <48A9E73C.5080208@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Subject: Re: Time for 2.2.10? Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:28:29 -0400 References: <48A9E73C.5080208@apache.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I was looking at proposing one for around Sept 13, which would be 3 months since 2.2.9... I would like to be RM again and will volunteer to do so. On Aug 18, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > Now that APR 1.3.3 and APR-UTIL 1.3.4 are now released we have a =20 > chance to get rid of this > "warning: unsupported option" messages that confuse many users when =20= > calling configure. > At the moment we have 9 entries in the CHANGES file for 2.2.10 and =20 > there are 5 more proposals > in the STATUS file that are missing only one vote. > I think if get these done we also have enough stuff from pure httpd =20= > point of view that warrants > a release. WDYT? > > Regards > > R=FCdiger >