On 09/11/2010 09:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
So, dunno if we need to ship that at the first place.
Sounds like not.
This might be a good point to drop it and let people confirm that it isn't used?
+1
Regards
--
^TM
---
On 9/11/2010 12:23 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 09/10/2010 08:06 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 9/10/2010 12:48 PM, mt...@apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: mturk
>>> Date: Fri Sep 10 17:48:15 2010
>>> New Revision: 995901
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=995901&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> O
On 09/10/2010 08:06 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 9/10/2010 12:48 PM, mt...@apache.org wrote:
Author: mturk
Date: Fri Sep 10 17:48:15 2010
New Revision: 995901
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=995901&view=rev
Log:
Oops. We should really do something with that portable.h
svn rm it. Th
On 9/10/2010 12:48 PM, mt...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: mturk
> Date: Fri Sep 10 17:48:15 2010
> New Revision: 995901
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=995901&view=rev
> Log:
> Oops. We should really do something with that portable.h
svn rm it. The make files need simple cat portable.h.i
