From new-httpd-owner@apache.org  Sat Aug  2 06:37:08 1997
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by hyperreal.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA16886;
	Sat, 2 Aug 1997 06:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from devsys.jaguNET.com (devsys.jaguNET.com [206.156.208.6])
	by hyperreal.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA16880
	for <new-httpd@apache.org>; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 06:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from jim@localhost) by devsys.jaguNET.com (8.8.6/jag-2.4) id JAA10182 for new-httpd@apache.org; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 09:37:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <199708021337.JAA10182@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: [STATUS] Apache 1.2.2 (Fri  1-Aug-1997 10:49 MET DST)
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 09:37:00 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <199708011937.VAA02164@en1.engelschall.com> from "Ralf S. Engelschall" at Aug 1, 97 09:37:53 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Content-Type: text
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Oh, I agree that there might come a time for a 1.2.3, but I'm simply
saying that our energy should be directed towards  1.3 rather than
a 1.2.3. 1.2.3 should be released when there are sufficient semi-serious
bug fixes (as we did with 1.1.1->1.1.2->1.1.3)

Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> 
> 
> In article <199708011405.KAA05378@devsys.jaguNET.com> you wrote:
> > Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> 
> > Once released, I'd like us to see more effort done in getting 1.3
> > at least into a beta phase... Although it doesn't look good to
> > have releases spaced _way_ too far apart, iit also doesn't "look"
> > good having them on top of one another.
> 
> > I agree that 1.2.2 was needed for the bug fixes, but I think 1.2.3
> > should be 1.3 :)
> 
> While I also want to see 1.3 out there as a beta version, I don't think there
> is any need to cut the 1.2 branch. When time comes and more bugs need to be
> fixed before 1.3.0(!) is out, of course there should be 1.2.3 or even 1.2.4.
> Look at Squid, they have 1.0.22 and 1.1.14. And the 1.0er Squid was fixed as
> the stable-branch for a long time until 1.1.0 went out. This way the users
> always had a really stable version. While I hope we never need Apache
> 1.2.22(!) ;-) I think we should not state that we never do any more 1.2.3.
> When there is need, we should do it. When not, even better.... :-)
> 
> Greetings,
>                                        Ralf S. Engelschall
>                                        rse@engelschall.com
>                                        www.engelschall.com
> 


-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"