Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
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: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 16:13:14 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <E563FB5AB3F02844AC749BA39E494AB406130C6A@VF-MBX11.internal.vodafone.com>
In-Reply-To: <050081B1-F62D-43C5-91A6-9CD2CA4BBB5D@jaguNET.com>
Thread-Topic: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
Thread-Index: AczhuohPRsxqqkBlRB6TpEcF9NM5sQAApzQA
References: <050081B1-F62D-43C5-91A6-9CD2CA4BBB5D@jaguNET.com>
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Pl=FCm=2C_R=FCdiger=2C_VF-Group=22?=
 <ruediger.pluem@vodafone.com>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 2. Februar 2012 15:54
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
>=20
> I'm calling a vote to get consensus on whether we should continue
> to bundle apr/apu with httpd 2.4.x.
>=20
> The proposal is that at the time we T&R 2.4.x, we also "bundle"
> that latest, released versions of apr/apu "with" the httpd tarball.
> How we bundle it (eg: sep tarball or have it part of the httpd tarball
> ala 2.2.x) and what we call it are *not* part of the vote, the
> idea being that if we do wish to bundle it, we can decide the
> "best" way to do so. If we don't wish to bundle, the issue is moot.
>=20
> Let's give it the normal 72 hours:
>=20
>   [X] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
>   [ ] +0: I don't care
>   [ ] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x
>=20
> Cheers!

Regards

R=FCdiger