httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From (Rodent of Unusual Size)
Subject Re: [STATUS] Thu Jun 5 07:12:25 EDT 1997
Date Thu, 05 Jun 1997 12:01:01 GMT
>From the fingers of Jim Jagielski flowed the following:
>1.2b12 status as of Thu Jun  5 07:12:25 EDT 1997
>  * Code changes committed since 1.2b11:
>    * PR624 Closed: Fixed open timestamp fd in proxy_cache.c
>      (actually, CHANGES was adjusted to reflect the above which
>      was done in 1.2b11). ** database needs to reflect this closure ***

    I've marked it as closed.

>    * PR#663: SCO3 doesn't have writev() *** database needs to reflect
>      this closure ***

    Already closed.

>    * Apache team members pgp keys now available in KEYS file

    Ben's key has several unknown signatories, but this looks excellent.

>The Plan
>  * We need to setup a time for the 1.2 release process... I would
>    suggest 18:00 GMT, at that point the CVS tree is adjusted to
>    reflect '1.2' and the tree is branched. Tarballs and distributions
>    will then be done and announced. Binary builds will proceed after
>    that.

    I've never worked with branches in CVS before.  Dean indicates that
    working on both 1.2 and 2.0 can be problematical.  Is there a quick
    cookbook/checklist for us iggerant folx on how to switch back and
    forth without scroodling everything in sight?

>Documentation Changes that would be nice for 1.2 but we're
>not gonna hold-up for them:
>  * Ken's code documentation fixes... I think everyone is a bit
>    concerned/worried about any code-level changes at this point.

    Hmmph.  Didn't seem to stop the Perl-related mod_include stuff.  All
    right, all right, I'll shut up about this and put it into 1.2.1.
    (Unless someone else +1s before release to-day :-}

>  * some better suexec docs would be really nice, detailing some of the
>    security risks and compromises discussed
>	New Status: Jason working like a dog to make
>	 the deadline. Has some stuff available but
>	 not in the HTML "color" format we're now using.

    Actually the colours are right, but the alignment was off.  Jason
    appears to be working from the output of a "save as HTML" rather
    than from the CVS copy of the suexec.html file, because his draft
    contained the results of SSI processing rather than the SSIs
    themselves.  Easily fixed.; let's worry about content.

    #ken    :-)}

View raw message