Re: Going for jk 1.2.28

2009-03-05 Thread Rainer Jung
On 05.03.2009 10:38, Mladen Turk wrote: Rainer Jung wrote: On 05.03.2009 07:50, Mladen Turk wrote: Rainer Jung wrote: Do you want to do the next steps, or should I? BTW, I'd like that we this time use the common httpd 2.0 and 2.2 versions for producing the binaries. For 2.0 I'd suggest 2.0

Re: Going for jk 1.2.28

2009-03-05 Thread Mladen Turk
Rainer Jung wrote: On 05.03.2009 07:50, Mladen Turk wrote: Rainer Jung wrote: Do you want to do the next steps, or should I? BTW, I'd like that we this time use the common httpd 2.0 and 2.2 versions for producing the binaries. For 2.0 I'd suggest 2.0.52 (or 2.0.49) and for 2.2 version 2.2.3

Re: Going for jk 1.2.28

2009-03-05 Thread Rainer Jung
On 05.03.2009 07:50, Mladen Turk wrote: Rainer Jung wrote: Do you want to do the next steps, or should I? BTW, I'd like that we this time use the common httpd 2.0 and 2.2 versions for producing the binaries. For 2.0 I'd suggest 2.0.52 (or 2.0.49) and for 2.2 version 2.2.3. For 1.3, 1.3.23 sh

Re: Going for jk 1.2.28

2009-03-05 Thread Rainer Jung
On 05.03.2009 07:38, Mladen Turk wrote: Rainer Jung wrote: On 19.02.2009 16:39, Mladen Turk wrote: Hi, We have a bug in 1.2.27 that cause core in some configuration scenarios (#46352). The fix is in the SVN for more then a month. Beyond that there are two additional bug fixes one preventing Ne

Re: Going for jk 1.2.28

2009-03-04 Thread Mladen Turk
Rainer Jung wrote: Do you want to do the next steps, or should I? BTW, I'd like that we this time use the common httpd 2.0 and 2.2 versions for producing the binaries. For 2.0 I'd suggest 2.0.52 (or 2.0.49) and for 2.2 version 2.2.3. For 1.3, 1.3.23 should be fine. All later versions have th

Re: Going for jk 1.2.28

2009-03-04 Thread Mladen Turk
Rainer Jung wrote: On 19.02.2009 16:39, Mladen Turk wrote: Hi, We have a bug in 1.2.27 that cause core in some configuration scenarios (#46352). The fix is in the SVN for more then a month. Beyond that there are two additional bug fixes one preventing Netware build, and other fixing IIS advance

Re: Going for jk 1.2.28

2009-03-04 Thread Rainer Jung
On 19.02.2009 16:39, Mladen Turk wrote: Hi, We have a bug in 1.2.27 that cause core in some configuration scenarios (#46352). The fix is in the SVN for more then a month. Beyond that there are two additional bug fixes one preventing Netware build, and other fixing IIS advanced configuration (#46

Re: Going for jk 1.2.28

2009-02-23 Thread Mladen Turk
Tim Whittington wrote: I¹d appreciate a fix for https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46416 so I can build on Windows without local patches. Recent APR version have that included. Can you check the current trunk version? Regards -- ^(TM) -

Re: Going for jk 1.2.28

2009-02-22 Thread Tim Whittington
I¹d appreciate a fix for https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46416 so I can build on Windows without local patches. cheers tim From: Mladen Turk Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:39:50 +0100 To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Going for jk 1.2.28 Hi,

Re: Going for jk 1.2.28

2009-02-20 Thread Rainer Jung
On 19.02.2009 16:39, Mladen Turk wrote: Hi, We have a bug in 1.2.27 that cause core in some configuration scenarios (#46352). The fix is in the SVN for more then a month. Beyond that there are two additional bug fixes one preventing Netware build, and other fixing IIS advanced configuration (#46

Re: Going for jk 1.2.28

2009-02-19 Thread Mark Thomas
Mladen Turk wrote: > Comments, objections? Go for it. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org

Re: Going for jk 1.2.28

2009-02-19 Thread Henri Gomez
+1 2009/2/19 Mladen Turk : > Hi, > > We have a bug in 1.2.27 that cause core in some configuration > scenarios (#46352). The fix is in the SVN for more then a month. > Beyond that there are two additional bug fixes > one preventing Netware build, and other fixing IIS > advanced configuration (#465