httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <ako...@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
Subject Re: the next release
Date Thu, 01 Feb 1996 22:59:50 GMT
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 <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us> /--------/ Lefler on IRC
----------------------------/ <http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/>
The viewpoints expressed above are entirely false, and in no way
represent Alexei Kosut nor any other person or entity. /--------------




Mime
View raw message