From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <199708021332.JAA10160@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 09:32:34 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95dg3.970801173957.4836M-100000@twinlark.arctic.org>
 from "Dean Gaudet" at Aug 1, 97 05:41:07 pm
Content-Type: text
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

I should be back available at "nominal levels" by Aug 10. I'll
volunteer if that delay is OK with everyone :)

Dean Gaudet wrote:
> 
> P.S. We need a status maintainer for 1.3.  The status reports really help
> keep things rolling. 
> 
> On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> 
> > +1.  As long as we have the resources to maintain a stable version I think
> > it really helps our image.  1.1.3 got really stale before 1.2 appeared,
> > and we were in 1.2 beta saying "we don't support 1.1.x any more"...  It
> > truly wasn't much effort for me when I was maintaining 1.2.x, and it's
> > probably not much for Ralf either.  It essentially amounts to keeping a
> > list of bug fixes.
> > 
> > One nice thing now that we're probably close to a 1.3 beta is that the bug
> > fixes for 1.2 can be well tested in 1.3 betas before going into 1.2. 
> > 
> > Dean
> > 
> > On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, 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!"