Return-Path: Delivered-To: apache-bugdb-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 28113 invoked by uid 6000); 28 May 1998 23:24:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 28098 invoked from network); 28 May 1998 23:24:05 -0000 Received: from ns2.remulak.net (HELO Mail.Golux.Com) (root@198.115.138.27) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 28 May 1998 23:24:05 -0000 Received: from Golux.Com (p16.ts3.nashu.NH.tiac.com [207.60.111.145]) by Mail.Golux.Com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA19703; Thu, 28 May 1998 19:22:20 -0400 Message-ID: <356DF31C.B6F43323@Golux.Com> Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 19:28:28 -0400 From: Rodent of Unusual Size Organization: The Apache Group X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marc Slemko CC: coar@apache.org, apache-bugdb@apache.org Subject: Re: os-windows/1623: Buffering of script output is not switched off References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apache-bugdb-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Marc Slemko wrote: > > Hang on a sec. Why would you think that you should close the PR if they > don't respond? "standard responses" are great, but they are far too easy > to just apply everywhere without looking at the problem. Just because a > PR hasn't been updated in a while doesn't mean the submitter has to do > anything. > > This, for example, is a known problem caused by known things. And from what I've been reading (though possibly misunderstanding) it was recently addressed. If I'm mistaken, fine - but I made the best judgement call I could. If someone's going to run our beta software, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to upgrade to the latest version to verify the continuance/fix of the issue. Non-beta, yes - but "beta" is the first word of "beta-test." #ken P-)} Ken Coar Apache Group member "Apache Server for Dummies"