apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 1.1.1 Release
Date Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:05:29 GMT
At 05:08 PM 3/16/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>-1 for apr-util / apr-iconv.
>>Curt has identified a very significant issue; I will comment
>>to that thread.  Since the 'fix' should be fairly trivial,
>>I think we should next release a version that deals with
>>iconv/*.so's.
>
>I do not believe this is a valid reason to hold up these releases. This is not a regression
from any previous versions. This release fixes many other issues. Once this issue is fixed,
we can do another release.

Heaven forbid folks examine issues as they queue in :)

+1 on release of 1.1.1 apr release, you are quite right.  

I will be voting +1 on httpd 2.1 alpha with this version.
I will be voting -1 on taking httpd 2.1 to beta based on 
this version, and this specific conflict.  Dev's don't mind 
having messed up and conflicting libraries (if you wonder 
where I've been, there ya go) messing up their systems.  
But end users are sure affected, and the point to a beta 
is pushing out code at our users/testers, as opposed to 
our devs/testers.

I'm glad that Curt was as diligent as he was in following
up the specific conflicts.  My svn, httpd, all my packages
are fragmented into their own trees.  

I don't expect either is true of the casual users/testers 
and any product that rolls these out in the same location or
tries to use the envvar will end up jammed.  We have jk2 
(well, though it's deprectated), svn, apache, log4cxx, etc 
all who've come to trust apr - and we need to do all we can 
to continue to keep that trust.

So +1 that 1.1.1 is better than 1.1.0 was.

I am amused that some expect fast reaction to backport these
fixes from trunk - the fixes that are ignored on list for months.
I brought up the .rc/version issues 11/20, no feedback.  David 
Barrett observed the problem 12/21, I committed the fix 2/7 and 
immediately got a flood of (productive) dialog, and immediately
tweaked accordingly.  If you aren't happy with my response time
and attitude twords the "httpd 2.1 beta today!" scroll back to
all the unanswered posts from many end users and fellow devs.

In answer to the bigger Q - I would discourage anyone from
adopting apr 1.0 and hope few have.  apr 1.0 wasn't ready for
prime time, to coexist on machines which had our original 
apr 0.9 installed.  Now apr 1.1.1 is getting close to getting
it right.  If I voice that we should take things a bit more
slowly and thoroughly, it's because I expect the same attention
to detail from apr that folks expect from clib.  After all, we 
are asking our users to give that much trust to our library.

Bill


Mime
View raw message