Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 59928 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2006 22:42:55 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 29 Nov 2006 22:42:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 60488 invoked by uid 500); 29 Nov 2006 22:43:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 60446 invoked by uid 500); 29 Nov 2006 22:43:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 60407 invoked by uid 99); 29 Nov 2006 22:43:02 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:43:02 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [207.155.252.47] (HELO goliath.cnchost.com) (207.155.252.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:42:49 -0800 Received: from [192.168.0.21] (c-24-15-193-17.hsd1.il.comcast.net [24.15.193.17]) (as wrowe@rowe-clan.net) by goliath.cnchost.com (ConcentricHost(2.54) Relay) with ESMTP id 0442E17C5; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:42:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <456E0CCF.4040807@rowe-clan.net> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:42:23 -0600 From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061107) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Justin Erenkrantz , "William A. Rowe, Jr." , dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release apr / apr-util 1.2.8 / 0.9.13 References: <456D7BAC.7060807@rowe-clan.net> <5c902b9e0611290840k6b89088fn486a9af71c4d2365@mail.gmail.com> <456DE5FB.4080909@rowe-clan.net> <20061129222051.GA2515@scotch.ics.uci.edu> In-Reply-To: <20061129222051.GA2515@scotch.ics.uci.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >> If we roll over to 1.2.9, I'd like to do it no later than tomorrow evening. > > As I said, I don't view these failures as anything that should hold up 1.2.8. Understood - but Solaris seems to be the biggest thorn in our side (and their own - heh). In combination with the BSD issues, I'd really appreciate if some folks can jump in and triage these failures - if readily fixed lets bump on, if not, lets plan a 1.2.9. But I'd really prefer not to roll out a 1.2.9 this year.