Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 14112 invoked by uid 6000); 23 Feb 1998 21:44:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 14101 invoked from network); 23 Feb 1998 21:44:43 -0000 Received: from valis.worldgate.com (marcs@198.161.84.2) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 23 Feb 1998 21:44:43 -0000 Received: from localhost (marcs@localhost) by valis.worldgate.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA13535 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 14:44:42 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 14:44:41 -0700 (MST) From: Marc Slemko To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: 1.2.6 In-Reply-To: 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 On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Lars Eilebrecht wrote: > According to Dean Gaudet: > > [...] > > Apache testing proceeds at a very lethargic pace because we insist that > > every time we mail announce@apache.org it be a totally golden release. > > That's fine, but we'd gain a lot more by having a list of folks willing > > to test releases before we call them golden. Almost every case where > > we've had to ditch 1.x.y and roll 1.x.(y+1) immediately would have been > > caught by such a list. > > I like the idea with a testers-list, but how about simply releasing > beta/prerelease versions: 1.2.6b1, 1.2.6-pre1, whatever... No. I don't really see any gain other than even more work and confusion. If we have people to test, then it is easy enough for them to just use the tarball from dev.apache.org which should change little as releases approach.