Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id IAA07423;
 Tue, 19 Dec 1995 08:48:42 -0800
Received: from cass41 by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id
 IAA07416; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 08:48:36 -0800
Received: from mamba.ast.cam.ac.uk by cass41 with smtp
	(Smail3.1.29.1 #9) id m0tS5BW-000CMDC; Tue, 19 Dec 95 16:46 GMT
Received: by mamba.ast.cam.ac.uk (Smail3.1.29.1 #9)
	id m0tS5BV-0000miC; Tue, 19 Dec 95 16:46 GMT
Message-Id: <m0tS5BV-0000miC@mamba.ast.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 95 16:46 GMT
From: drtr@ast.cam.ac.uk (David Robinson)
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: 64.auth_type
Content-Length: 489
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

>Well, that sort of ties in with my feelings but I'm still concerned about
>the idea of releasing untested code. No-one's running 1.0.1 since it's just
>a set of patches to already released code. If you just decide one day
>that the last bug seemed pretty serious so it's time to chuck the thing out
>the door then where's the quality control for that release? Just because
>it's a bug fix update doesn't make it any less of a release.

This is a good point. What do you suggest?

 David.