Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hyperreal.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA26702; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 17:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from twinlark.arctic.org (twinlark.arctic.org [204.62.130.91]) by hyperreal.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA26663 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 17:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 5821 invoked by uid 500); 2 Aug 1997 00:36:09 -0000 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 17:36:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Dean Gaudet To: Apache Developer ML Subject: Re: [STATUS] Apache 1.2.2 (Fri 1-Aug-1997 10:49 MET DST) In-Reply-To: <199708011937.VAA02164@en1.engelschall.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org +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 >