1. 01 Dec, 2002 7 commits
  2. 30 Nov, 2002 20 commits
  3. 29 Nov, 2002 4 commits
  4. 27 Nov, 2002 2 commits
  5. 26 Nov, 2002 2 commits
  6. 25 Nov, 2002 4 commits
  7. 24 Nov, 2002 1 commit
    • Jim Jagielski's avatar
      Considering that under 1.3 we have not felt the need to revert · 16382e19
      Jim Jagielski authored
      back to r-t-c, and that 1.3 is used by a *lot* more people
      and so stability must be even more of a concern, I fail
      to see why we need to move to a r-t-c for the 2.0 branch to
      "ensure" stability or for any of the other suggested reasons.
      
      Certainly any issues with the 1.3 release problems will themselves
      be moot since the release procedure for 2.x is very different.
      r-t-c, IMO, will do little more than stifle development on
      a tree that really requires *more* development.
      
      PR:
      Obtained from:
      Submitted by:
      Reviewed by:
      
      
      git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/APACHE_2_0_BRANCH@97631 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
      16382e19