Re: [VOTE] JK 1.2.15

2005-11-01 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Linux, Win32 test out fine. Solaris/HP builds fine (not tested just yet), while AIX 1.3 still refuses to build properly, but that's not a new issue. +1 to release as stable - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For addi

Re: [VOTE] JK 1.2.15

2005-10-24 Thread Glenn Nielsen
I have built mod_jk 1.2.15 for apache 2.0.55 on both Solaris 7 (Sun CC) and FreeBSD 5.3. Build and normal use appear to be fine. +1 to release as stable Regards, Glenn On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 05:56:55PM +0200, Mladen Turk wrote: > Hi, > > JK 1.2.15 has been tagged last week. > Please see the:

Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15

2005-10-24 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Jean-frederic Clere wrote: Mladen Turk wrote: Anyhow, what should I do, since I've volunteer for a RM? Good questions... I mean, I don't expect to see the 1.3 branch for couple of months from now, well, that's neither here nor there w.r.t. 1.2.x - whoever needs to do new development (if

Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15

2005-10-24 Thread Jean-frederic Clere
Mladen Turk wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to be declared as stable that I'm missing? I'll try to find cycles to test myself, next week. I know I'm having alot of trouble with the apache 1.3 build on odd architectures, probably beca

Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15

2005-10-24 Thread Peter Rossbach
Sorry for late response, but I start testing and hope finish the test at next two days First testresults at Suse 9.3, Windows XP looks very well Peter Mladen Turk schrieb: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to be declared as stable that I'm mi

Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15

2005-10-24 Thread Glenn Nielsen
I plan on installing 1.2.15 on FreeBSD 5.3 and Solaris 7 today and do some minimal testing. Glenn On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 03:17:56PM +0200, Mladen Turk wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> > >>Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to > >>be declared as stable that I'm missing?

Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15

2005-10-24 Thread Mladen Turk
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to be declared as stable that I'm missing? I'll try to find cycles to test myself, next week. I know I'm having alot of trouble with the apache 1.3 build on odd architectures, probably because the clash of a libt

Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15

2005-10-20 Thread David Rees
On 10/20/05, Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Seems there is low interest on JK 1.2.15 although it resolves > lots of issues compared with released 1.2.14.1 :( > > Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to > be declared as stable that I'm missing? I found 1.2.15 to be stabl

Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15

2005-10-20 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Mladen Turk wrote: Hi, Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to be declared as stable that I'm missing? I'll try to find cycles to test myself, next week. I know I'm having alot of trouble with the apache 1.3 build on odd architectures, probably because the clash of a libtool-b

[JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15

2005-10-20 Thread Mladen Turk
Hi, Seems there is low interest on JK 1.2.15 although it resolves lots of issues compared with released 1.2.14.1 :( So far, seems only Henri voted +1 (I hope I read his vote properly). Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to be declared as stable that I'm missing? If not, pleas