httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sameer <>
Subject Re: the next release
Date Thu, 01 Feb 1996 23:11:12 GMT
	My rlimitpatch might want to go into 1.0.3 as well. Not a
showstopper, yes, but those warnings are very disconcerting.

	Other than that, I agree.
> On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > > Re: my earlier mail this week about the next apache release
> > > that I'd like to see ready for the weekend of the Feb 17/28.
> > > 
> > > Two people wanted to aim for 1.0.2, but we already have one of
> > > those now, so the only valid suggestion left is my 1.1.
> > > Am I going to get this by default?   ;-)
> > 
> > No. You get 1.0.3. We've already voted on this. 1.1 is designated for the
> > results of all members of the Apache group indulging in their wildest fantasies
> > on the code.
> Yes, but no. There is no 1.0.3. We had two months for patches to show up
> in for_Apache_1.0.1 and for_Apache_1.1b0. Plenty of time for "wildest
> fantasies". We just released 1.0.2 and there are no patches left that are
> important bug fixes (which is what 1.0.x is reserved for), save sameer's
> cookie patch. 
> The only course of action left (unless we want to release a 1.0.2a/1.0.3 
> fixing the cookies bug) is to go for 1.1b1 as our next version. Rob 
> Hartill has created a for_Apache_1.0.2 directory which is *for* this 
> purpose. Anything that goes in there gets voted on for 1.1b1 next week. 
> If we want 1.0.3 (and I say, enough already), we need to rid that 
> directory of almost all of its contents, which are not bug fixes, but 
> enchancements or new features. At any rate, 1.1b1 is all that's left, and 
> it's about time. We can procrastinate forever, saying "well, we need to 
> put in more stuff", but meanwhile, the world is passing us by.
> Also, could someone please move my patches in for_Apache_misc (56 and 73a)
> into 1.0.2, assming that it's for 1.1b1. They patch cleanly onto 1.0.2,
> and I would like to see them in the next featured release. I would also
> like to reccomend patches 61a, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 77, and 84 (that's all
> but 71, which conficts with 56, and 17, 78, and 83, which don't patch onto
> 1.0.2 - if the authors of these patches could respin them, that'd be
> wonderful) be moved as well, as they all patch cleanly onto 1.0.2, work
> fine, and were put there so they would end up in the beta of 1.1. 
> > Anyway, it is completely pointless to up the minor version for bug fixes.
> I disagree. It's important, just for record-keeping reasons. So you can 
> tell if you have the newest version, the one that fixes the bugs. If 
> you *have* that bug, someone can ask "what version are you running?" and 
> the answer will tell you. Otherwise, it's a version plus patches, which 
> often people don't remember if they applied or not, or people don't 
> apply. I've had to install software that needs 100s of patches just to 
> get tot he standard installation. It doesn't make sense, it's a pain in 
> the neck, there's no reason for it.
> Oh, and I just noticed something: the version of mod_actions.c in
> contrib/modules still has that nasty SIGSEVG bug for most platforms. The
> latest version (the same one that's in patch 73a) is in
> httpd/incoming/mod_actions.v3.c, and if someone could replace
> contrib/modules/mod_actions.c with that (keep the name the same though - I
> only added the v3 beacsue I can't overwrite the existing files), that'd be
> just wonderful. 
> --/ Alexei Kosut <> /--------/ Lefler on IRC
> ----------------------------/ <>
> The viewpoints expressed above are entirely false, and in no way
> represent Alexei Kosut nor any other person or entity. /--------------

Sameer Parekh					Voice:   510-601-9777x3
Community ConneXion, Inc.			FAX:     510-601-9734
The Internet Privacy Provider			Dialin:  510-658-6376 (or login as "guest")

View raw message