[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Using APACHE_2_0_BRANCH not HEAD was Re: recent apr change?

From: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz_at_apache.org>
Date: 2003-01-06 20:37:03 CET

--On Monday, January 6, 2003 1:28 PM -0600 Ben Collins-Sussman
<sussman@collab.net> wrote:

> I don't understand; is ap_lookup_provider *only* in httpd 2.1?

No, it's in the APACHE_2_0_BRANCH. We just haven't done a 2.0
release in so long that it isn't in any official httpd release. It
is all ready to be included in 2.0.44 - which as Sander said should
be out later this week.

> Seeing as how we're going to start changing mod_dav's pool usage,
> and possibly it's API (#issue 773), I'd rather just start using 2.1
> sooner rather than later. Is yesterday's tarball of 2.1 a
> dangerous thing?

If you do this, I'd certainly make sure you got my commit to httpd
from about an hour ago that requires mod_dav_lock to be explicitly
enabled (modules/dav/lock/config6.m4 r1.2). That's the cause of the
DavGenericLockDB errors. Well, it isn't really, but I haven't come
up with a solution for that problem just yet. Therefore, you
probably shouldn't be using mod_dav_lock unless you have a compelling

> Why branch it at all? Just run 'svn merge -r4255:4254 .; svn
> commit'.

I think the next Subversion release should have 2.0.44 officially out
there, so that commit should be in the trunk then. This is just
collosally bad timing. -- justin

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jan 6 20:38:44 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.