httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject Re: 1.2.6
Date Mon, 23 Feb 1998 02:11:38 GMT
Vigorous agreement here - let me hear a few more +1's and I'll set this up.
 I also agree with Dean that we need to support 1.2.x as a bug-free
reference HTTP/1.1 implementation, at least until we can make the same
claim until 1.3, which may not even happen until 1.3.1 or .2 or .3.


At 05:14 PM 2/22/98 -0800, Dean Gaudet wrote:
>I think this is an indication that perhaps we should have an
>"apache 1.2 testers" mailing list.  Not an indication that we should
>discontinue supporting an otherwise very solid release.  The list mandate
>would be something like: 
>    Apache 1.2 is considered the stable version of Apache; it is under
>    feature freeze, only bug fixes are considered.  In an attempt to
>    maintain this stability we need testers who use 1.2 in production.
>    Many of the Apache developers use 1.3, and are frequently unable
>    to test older versions.  The apache-1.2-testers mailing list is
>    intended for the announcement and discussion of pre-releases of
>    Apache 1.2.  Please do *not* discuss features, as they will not be
>    accepted into Apache 1.2.
>Where "pre-release" means we'll point them at from-cvs.
>I think we'd all gain from something like this. 
>On 22 Feb 1998, Randy Terbush wrote:
>> I agree that we cannot assume that no response means that everything
>> is a go. I have not run 1.2.x for quite some time and don't have the
>> ability to give it more than a compiler and "it runs" test. Another
>> argument for putting our attention into 1.3 from this point on.
>> Jim Jagielski <> writes:
>> > While we are questioning how many people tested 1.3b5 before we
>> > rolled and released it, how many people bothered with 1.2.6?
>> > I notice that we didn't have any votes or anything like that
>> > for 1.2.6, and I'm guessing more people would be using 1.2.6
>> > rather than 1.3b5 in any case, so the 1.2.6 release should
>> > have been that much more "cautious".
>> > 
>> > The fact is that both were released as most others have been...
>> > An intent of rolling was announced, a tarball was rolled, a
>> > request that people test it was announced with a statement
>> > "if all is OK we can release it on X/X" at which time it was
>> > done. We have, unfortunately, fallen into the habit of
>> > assuming that no response means that all is OK or, at the
>> > least, "I can't be bothered looking right now... whatever"
>> > 
>> > As far as the 1.3b5 and 1.3b6 stuff is concerned, I _think_
>> > Marc says that the single UserDir stuff is now working for
>> > him, but that multiple is definately hosed (others concur).
>> > I would not mind putting a patchfile that fixes that out on
>> > the server and then releasing 1.3b6 "soon" in the hopes that
>> > we are getting close to the golden 1.3.
>> > -- 
>> > ====================================================================
>> >       Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
>> >           |
>> >             "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"
specialization is for insects

View raw message