Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-81296-apmail-httpd-dev-archive=httpd.apache.org@httpd.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E45C119D6
	for <apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Fri,  5 Sep 2014 18:01:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 8614 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2014 18:01:58 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org
Received: (qmail 8554 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2014 18:01:58 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
list-help: <mailto:dev-help@httpd.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@httpd.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.httpd.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org
Received: (qmail 8544 invoked by uid 99); 5 Sep 2014 18:01:58 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 18:01:58 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.9 required=5.0
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [173.201.192.38] (HELO
 p3plwbeout11-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net) (173.201.192.38)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 18:01:52 +0000
Received: from localhost ([173.201.192.118])
	by p3plwbeout11-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with bizsmtp
	id nW1X1o0012ZjpT901W1X9r; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 11:01:31 -0700
X-SID: nW1X1o0012ZjpT901
Received: (qmail 23135 invoked by uid 99); 5 Sep 2014 18:01:31 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="=_386dd33f57f65b3094e2695819bb30a2"
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: wrowe@rowe-clan.net
Subject: RE: Re: C99 bump prior to apr 2.0?
In-Reply-To: <5408A5C5.8000608@gknw.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 11:01:30 -0700
Message-Id: 
 <20140905110130.ec908e91c20de17e6e448089a4bc3ed2.e91186611d.mailapi@email11.secureserver.net>
X-Originating-IP: 69.245.156.141
User-Agent: MailAPI 
X-Sender: wrowe@rowe-clan.net
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--=_386dd33f57f65b3094e2695819bb30a2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: C99 bump prior to apr 2=
=2E0?
From: "Gregg Smith" <gls@gknw.net>
Date: 9/4/14 12:47 pm
To: dev@httpd.apache.org

On 9/4/2014 8:49 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
 > I overlooked 2 other viable options
 >
 > [ ] Roll -win32-src-r2.zip with apr-util 1.5.2 (pre-breakage) and=20
 > corresponding binaries
 > [ ] Roll -win32-src-r2.zip with apr-util 1.5.4 (upon release) and=20
 > corresponding binaries
 >
 Assumes a much quicker path to everything hitting the mirrors and=20
 looking at 1.5.3's change log later yesterday I did not see anything VC=20
 crucial so
 [X] Roll -win32-src-r2.zip with apr-util 1.5.2 (pre-breakage) and=20
 corresponding binaries.
=20
 If I hear no objections today, this is how I'll proceed for the time being=
=2E
=20
It might be worthwhile to roll a win32-src-r3 later on with 1.5.4 but I don=
't
see a reason to wait on it.  Both 1.5.2, 1.5.3 and someday, 1.5.4 are ASF
releases so I don't think we are disturbing the release policy by moving
ahead with both plans.  httpd-2.2.29 itself doesn't appear to have any
hiccups (except the reference to 2.4.x+ compatibility for MergeTrailers,
a defect already corrected on the online docs).

--=_386dd33f57f65b3094e2695819bb30a2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=utf-8

<blockquote class=3D"threadBlockQuote" style=3D"border-left: 2px solid #C2C=
2C2; padding-left: 3px; margin-left: 4px;">--------- Original Message -----=
----
<div>Subject: Re: C99 bump prior to apr 2.0?<br />From: "Gregg Smith" &lt;g=
ls@gknw.net&gt;<br />Date: 9/4/14 12:47 pm<br />To: dev@httpd.apache.org<br=
 /><br />On 9/4/2014 8:49 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:<br /> &gt; I overl=
ooked 2 other viable options<br /> &gt;<br /> &gt; [ ] Roll -win32-src-r2=
=2Ezip with apr-util 1.5.2 (pre-breakage) and <br /> &gt; corresponding bin=
aries<br /> &gt; [ ] Roll -win32-src-r2.zip with apr-util 1.5.4 (upon relea=
se) and <br /> &gt; corresponding binaries<br /> &gt;<br /> Assumes a much =
quicker path to everything hitting the mirrors and <br /> looking at 1.5.3'=
s change log later yesterday I did not see anything VC <br /> crucial so<br=
 /> [X] Roll -win32-src-r2.zip with apr-util 1.5.2 (pre-breakage) and <br /=
> corresponding binaries.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
</blockquote>
<div>If I hear no objections today, this is how I'll proceed for the time b=
eing.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>It might be worthwhile to roll a win32-src-r3 later on with 1.5.4 but =
I don't</div>
<div>see a reason to wait on it. &nbsp;Both 1.5.2, 1.5.3 and someday, 1.5=
=2E4 are ASF</div>
<div>releases so I don't think we are disturbing the release policy by movi=
ng</div>
<div>ahead with both plans. &nbsp;httpd-2.2.29 itself doesn't appear to hav=
e any</div>
<div>hiccups (except the reference to 2.4.x+ compatibility for MergeTrailer=
s,</div>
<div>a defect already corrected on the online docs).</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>

--=_386dd33f57f65b3094e2695819bb30a2--