Hi,
> What is the thought, is 1.2.10 stable? 1.2.8? Or 1.2.6? I'm partial
> to 1.2.8 myself.
from what I see in our NetWare forums I can only agree to Klaus and say that
everything after 1.2.6 has some kind of issues - that was also the reason why I
dint move the NetWare bins to its place unt
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Truly hope it helps. Sorry for having to route through rowe-clan,
it seems tomcat-dev hates my apache.org persona. (tomcat cvs did
not complain, but it's forwarded onto tomcat-dev.)
This should now be fixed. Let me know if it isn't.
Mark
-
Ok, all of the file ^M fixes within jakarta-tomcat-connectors
are finished. I added the /Oy- flag as there was unanimous
concensus for -that- change. I left out the /Gs0 since legit
concerns were raised. Think we are ready for a tarball :)
-kb files which should not have been are now -ko. It's
At 04:33 AM 5/10/2005, Mladen Turk wrote:
>Interesting is that it was spotted only when the release
>was made, so this gives one reason more for making some
>sort of releases and binaries to attract more users to
>actually do the testing.
Agreed that development releases (early and often) are a v
Well the JK 1.2 branch should be fixed and when we'll have something
stable, we could start a new branch.
BTW, there was many bugs related to LB in jk for ages :-)
2005/5/10, Klaus Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:33:56AM +0200, Mladen Turk wrote:
> > There was a nasty bug
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:33:56AM +0200, Mladen Turk wrote:
> There was a nasty bug in load balancer, that basically
> broke the failover.
>
> Interesting is that it was spotted only when the release
> was made, so this gives one reason more for making some
> sort of releases and binaries to attr
