Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:00:36 -0800 (PST)
From: <rbb@covalent.net>
To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Cc: <new-httpd@apache.org>, <dev@apr.apache.org>
Subject: Re: httpd-2.0/apr/apr-util Code Freeze
In-Reply-To: <056201c0a724$c53e2760$96c0b0d0@roweclan.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0103070859490.10761-100000@koj>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


There are a couple of bugs in the STATUS file that I started hunting
today.  Can we shoot for a tarball roll of sometime on Thursday or Friday?

I agree, the no-freeze model just doesn't work in this environment.

Ryan


On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Folks,
>
>   I'm going to propose something radical.  Although Jeff's recent commit points out
> a potentially serious problem (discrepancy between the file size and file offset types)
> in the Win32 APR, which I will look at today, this server appears rather stable, and
> buildable, and rbb will have 'the patch' today for our OS2 woes (see - cross platform
> development actually carries benefits!)
>
>   Can we begin a code freeze, excepting _minor_ build and code fixes, until we have
> a stable tarball ready to share?  I have win32 folks trying to make apache2.0a9 build,
> this just doesn't make any sense.  Once Ryan's patch is in, let's roll, and then go back
> to town.
>
>   It's been too long, time for a good tarball!  I increasingly believe that a pure
> implementation of Roy's model can't work.  Either 1) code freezes, 2) dev/release branches,
> or 3) parallel trees [I hate #3] seem required to allow development to progress while folks
> shoot down bugs.
>
> Bill
>
>
>


_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------