httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.0
Date Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:53:31 GMT
If I had access to Windows I would. I don't.

As far as using 'energ'... I've been using it to help get
Apache 2.4.0... maybe you may have noticed that.

As far as "wrong colored hat"... I'll let that slide...

On Jan 17, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Steffen wrote:

> Jim, better you use some energ to respond on win requests and comments. You never respond,
correct me if I am wrong. 
> 
> Looks like you are wearing  a wrong colored hat. 
> 
> Op 17 jan. 2012 om 12:36 heeft Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 17, 2012, at 12:01 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1/16/2012 10:55 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>> On 1/16/2012 11:50 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>> The 2.4.0 (prerelease) tarballs are available for download and test:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>> [...]
>>>> then I have no reason to test.  -1 to release.  Learn tact, man.
>>> 
>>> To further elaborate...
>>> 
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpd/patches/
>>> 
>>> * contains nothing to protect adopters of our beta since 2.3.5
>>> 
>>> * contains few of the patches necessary to close issues since 2.2.21
>>> 
>>> I think this release is a waste of the project's time and energy, and
>>> I had forewarned you of that opinion on private lists.
>>> 
>>> Until this project learns to protect users from published issues, -1
>>> to any further version-major releases.
>>> 
>> 
>> Bill, I am taking your advice and learning some tact, so I
>> respectfully ask: "What is your major malfunction?" I am
>> growing tired of you constantly complaining while doing *nothing*
>> to address those self-same issues which you seem to find so
>> problematic.
>> 
>> Aren't *you* part of this project? If "this project" is lacking
>> in protecting users from published issues, then aren't you
>> just as at "fault" as everyone else?
> 


Mime
View raw message