Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 83170 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2003 21:30:38 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Nov 2003 21:30:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 32127 invoked by uid 500); 11 Nov 2003 21:30:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 32095 invoked by uid 500); 11 Nov 2003 21:30:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 32080 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2003 21:30:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.s-und-n.de) (212.8.217.2) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Nov 2003 21:30:23 -0000 Received: from notes.sundn.de (ntsrv5.sundn.de [10.10.2.10]) by mail.s-und-n.de (postfix) with ESMTP id 67AA2CFAA1 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:30:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from hw0386 ([192.168.2.31]) by notes.sundn.de (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with SMTP id 2003111122302185:1845 ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:30:21 +0100 From: "Carsten Ziegeler" To: Subject: RE: [IMP] Code Freeze Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:31:09 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <97D75E05-143B-11D8-A27B-000393D2CB02@apache.org> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 11.11.2003 22:30:27, Serialize by Router on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 11.11.2003 22:30:28, Serialize complete at 11.11.2003 22:30:28 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > Carsten, what is the status of the component proxy? If we have such a > big memory leak, I think we should get it solved before doing the > release. > I have applied all the changes during our FirstFriday and I'm waiting on some feedback, if the changes fixed the problem and if everything is working well - but I guess from the "no response at all" that at least everything is working well :) > Also note that there seems to be consensus on making Sylvain's > restricted flowscript calling policy in 2.1.3 Yepp, I saw it. > > These two might just well "unfreeze" the tree? WDYT? Yes, of course - I still think, if someone is really sure that a patch/fix - whatever you call it - will not break other parts, it's ok to apply it. But I think we agreed last time, we discussed the code freeze, that a vote is required. As Sylvain has started this voted and as the outcome of this vote seems to be to apply it before the release, it's ok anyway. The only question is: do we stick to the release date of thursday? *I* can do the release on thursday or on friday. Due to the ApacheCon and some holidays :) I won't be able to do it in the following three weeks. So if we want to shift the date for one or two weeks someone else has to do it. WDYAT? Carsten