Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020815151356.02fec738@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:16:38 -0500
To: Ryan Bloom <rbb@ntrnet.net>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apr-site versioning.html
Cc: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>, Aaron Bannert <aaron@clove.org>,
        dev@apr.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0208131505060.6189-100000@shell.ntrnet.net>
References: <200208131856.OAA25520@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 02:06 PM 8/13/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > >
> > > Why are we waiting for Bill to come back?  I thought the whole point of
> > > OSS was that no one person was so important that we couldn't continue
> > > without them?
> >
> > I'm not saying that Bill is "so important" just that I know that he's
> > done quite a bit of investigating into this issue and might have
> > some final ideas. That's all :)
>
>Ok.  I don't honestly think we will get a release out the door this week
>anyway, but I also don't believe that Will has done a lot with the
>licensing stuff.  Most of that was Greg Stein, and AFAIK, we do have a
>run-time versioing scheme already.

s/licensing/versioning/ ???

I think Jim was talking about time_t and some other peripheral issues.

I'd suggest we give everyone the weekend + monday to identify borked-
ness that 'aught' to be fixed prior to release.

Put it in STATUS where it belongs.  When STATUS is empty of agreed
showstoppers, it's time to roll out +1

And IMHO, time isn't a showstopper.  There may be a few fn names that
need a final 'polishing' to get them all consistent, but we are pretty darned
close to done with that.

Bill