On 21.10.2010 19:05, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 10/21/2010 06:44 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 21.10.2010 18:05, Mladen Turk wrote:
>
I will commit a small change to the release script, that will add the
svn revision number to the end of JK_EXPOSED_VERSION. For me that is
sufficient.
And this would
On 10/21/2010 06:44 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 21.10.2010 18:05, Mladen Turk wrote:
>
I will commit a small change to the release script, that will add the svn
revision number to the end of JK_EXPOSED_VERSION. For me that is sufficient.
And this would mean that this cannot be used as
a relea
On 21.10.2010 18:05, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 10/21/2010 05:58 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 21.10.2010 17:47, Igor Galić wrote:
tags are cheap (:
I know that slogan, but from a users perspective I think "missing"
versions are always strange. It's OK if it happens every now and then
but it give a ve
On 10/21/2010 06:05 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Before we were using
tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist and this should be axed
completely.
What I mean, anything that we "dist" *must* be voted
before. Since our entire site is mirrored anything
on the site must be voted for (even if the readme
says "This i
On 10/21/2010 05:59 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
1.2.31 (r1003456)
What file name do you plan for the RC source tarball?
The same as a release.
I'll put them in the p.a.o/~mturk for potential voters.
Again, this is not a release, release candidate or something third.
It is my proposal made from th
On 10/21/2010 05:58 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 21.10.2010 17:47, Igor Galić wrote:
tags are cheap (:
I know that slogan, but from a users perspective I think "missing" versions are
always strange. It's OK if it happens every now and then but it give a very strange
feeling, if a lot of version
On 21.10.2010 17:44, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 10/21/2010 05:02 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 21.10.2010 14:48, Mladen Turk wrote:
My point is: once we circulate something, ...
But the point is that we don't circulate that.
It's supposed to be used only by PMC members that
would vote or no vote for
On 21.10.2010 17:47, Igor Galić wrote:
tags are cheap (:
I know that slogan, but from a users perspective I think "missing"
versions are always strange. It's OK if it happens every now and then
but it give a very strange feeling, if a lot of versions are not released.
Regards,
Rainer
--
- "Rainer Jung" wrote:
> On 21.10.2010 14:48, Mladen Turk wrote:
> > On 10/21/2010 02:29 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> >> On 21.10.2010 09:02, Mladen Turk wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hmmm, the problem with the RCs is:
> >>
> >> - either we don't want to change any contents of the release
> b
On 10/21/2010 05:02 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 21.10.2010 14:48, Mladen Turk wrote:
My point is: once we circulate something, ...
But the point is that we don't circulate that.
It's supposed to be used only by PMC members that
would vote or no vote for that release.
We are not creating someth
On 21 October 2010 16:02, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 21.10.2010 14:48, Mladen Turk wrote:
>>
>> On 10/21/2010 02:29 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21.10.2010 09:02, Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
>>>
>>> Hmmm, the problem with the RCs is:
>>>
>>> - either we don't want to change any content
On 21.10.2010 14:48, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 10/21/2010 02:29 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 21.10.2010 09:02, Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
Hmmm, the problem with the RCs is:
- either we don't want to change any contents of the release between
the last RC and the release. Then the RCs do not contain any
On 10/21/2010 02:29 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 21.10.2010 09:02, Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
Hmmm, the problem with the RCs is:
- either we don't want to change any contents of the release between the last
RC and the release. Then the RCs do not contain any indication that they are
actually RCs.
On 21.10.2010 09:02, Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
Seems we are fine for 1.2.31 now that httpd 2.3
compiles without problems.
Yep.
I plan to tag 1.2.31_RC1 and make release
candidate set of sources and bin at the ususal place.
If voted we would just need to svn mv 1.2.31_RC1 1.2.31
Hmmm, the prob
+1
I just committed a minor fix for the Apache 2.0 build with VS 2005 -
not a blocker.
cheers
tim
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Seems we are fine for 1.2.31 now that httpd 2.3
> compiles without problems.
>
> I plan to tag 1.2.31_RC1 and make release
> candidate
Hi,
Seems we are fine for 1.2.31 now that httpd 2.3
compiles without problems.
I plan to tag 1.2.31_RC1 and make release
candidate set of sources and bin at the ususal place.
If voted we would just need to svn mv 1.2.31_RC1 1.2.31
If someone again "needs more time for testing" :)
the release pr
16 matches
Mail list logo
