: [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .)
> PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo...
> PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: GOMEZ Henri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 10:12 AM
> >To:
ECTED](. .)
PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo...
PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6
>-Original Message-
>From: GOMEZ Henri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 10:12 AM
>To: Tomcat Developers List
>Subject: RE: JK versions
>
>After reading the commit log - most changes related to jk_channel,
>jk_registry, etc are pretty safe ( as they don't change any logic ).
>
>We could actually release Jk1.2 using the main tree - if everyone is
>comfortable with that. If not - Oct21 is probably a good point
>to branch
>( the relea
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Mike Anderson wrote:
> I'm afraid that we need to go back to an earlier date and re-port some
> fixes.
> The main reason is because the default 3.3 workers.properties still
> reference ajp12 which the current codebase no longer supports. This
> causes the plugins to fail duri
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/03/01 01:53PM >>>
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>>
>> > Ok, let's release mod_jk to 1.2 and start 2.0.
>>
>> For 1.2 we have 2 choices:
>> - Branch it at Nov 15 ( or around ), i.e. before jk_channel and the
new
>>
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>
> > Ok, let's release mod_jk to 1.2 and start 2.0.
>
> For 1.2 we have 2 choices:
> - Branch it at Nov 15 ( or around ), i.e. before jk_channel and the new
> stuff ( that will be part of jk2.0 ) was added.
Aft
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> Ok, let's release mod_jk to 1.2 and start 2.0.
What I did is put all the new stuff in native2. There are few other (big)
changes coming, I hope to get it back into a 'stable' state by the end of
the week and start updating the iis,nes,etc ( now I'm workin
+1
GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>
> >I will not check anything else into mod_jk until this is decided (
> >since my next commit is pretty big and likely to brake things,
> >I did a lot of changes in uri_map, etc. - I need a stable
> >branch labeled before doing the commit ).
>
> Ok, let's release mod_jk
> >I will not check anything else into mod_jk until this is decided (
> >since my next commit is pretty big and likely to brake things,
> >I did a lot of changes in uri_map, etc. - I need a stable
> >branch labeled before doing the commit ).
>
> Ok, let's release mod_jk to 1.2 and start 2.0.
>
>
>| - And may be start to think about creating web pages
>| for J-T-C
>
>A small webpage with something like "download mod_jk" on it
>would do the
>trick for now! Anything is better than nothing! And a link to
>it from the
>Tomcat webpages would really be something!
>
>It's IMPOSSIBLE to find t
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
| - And may be start to think about creating web pages
| for J-T-C
A small webpage with something like "download mod_jk" on it would do the
trick for now! Anything is better than nothing! And a link to it from the
Tomcat webpages would really be something
>I will not check anything else into mod_jk until this is decided (
>since my next commit is pretty big and likely to brake things,
>I did a lot of changes in uri_map, etc. - I need a stable
>branch labeled before doing the commit ).
Ok, let's release mod_jk to 1.2 and start 2.0.
The refactoring
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What I would like to do is make a branch for mod_jk 1.2, and eventually
> build a snapshot.
If I'm getting this right, you are trying to preserve 1.2 for bug fixing
a backward compatibility, while focusing on 2.0. Yes?
If so, I'm [+1] for it as it seems very reasonabl
> There is an important issue to discuss - labeling mod_jk.
>
> As you know, we are trying to make some improvements in jk, start using
> APR, etc. That will involve few significant changes - and some people
> may want to have a more 'stable' jk.
>
> There are 4 versions of jk:
>
> Let's call 1.0
There is an important issue to discuss - labeling mod_jk.
As you know, we are trying to make some improvements in jk, start using
APR, etc. That will involve few significant changes - and some people
may want to have a more 'stable' jk.
There are 4 versions of jk:
Let's call 1.0 what is present
15 matches
Mail list logo
