httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject RE: Alpha 4 delayed
Date Mon, 29 May 2000 01:48:15 GMT
> From: []
> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 7:54 PM
> Roy (I think it was him) suggested a while ago going back to 
> rolling a release candidate once a week, and releasing it if 
> it worked well enough, and dumping it if it didn't.  I am 
> beginning to see a definate advantage to just rolling a tarball 
> once a week, and putting it up for everybody to test, and if 
> its stable, then it becomes an alpha, if not it just gets
> deleted.

Amen and a +1 at that.  Roll it Thurs or so... so it can be
tested at the office or from home depending... and then announce
Sunday eve or Mon am.

If we can have an 'this is broken' list posted up with the Alpha,
then I couldn't even care less if they were deleted or not.  If
your platform (linux, os2, cray, or whatever) is broken, then
broken list saiz so... and if you want to download it anyway then
feel free.  A link right from the alpha page to the 'how to grab
the current tarball/cvs tree' would be a good thing too.

> From: []
> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 7:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Review then commit.
> I must be missing something.  It seems relatively obvious to 
> me that at some point we must go from alpha to beta.  What 
> better time to go from alpha to beta than when there are no 
> more known bugs and no more open showstopper issues or more 
> issues documented as desired in the release?  This is the case 
> that we are rapidly approaching.  Am I the only person who sees 
> this as an obvious time to become a beta?

I think we've lost one point... I've heard grumblings of a NW
port in 2.0, and I think there is an expectaction for a working 
Win9x port by 2.0b1.  I'd like to see the NetWare port added to
the STATUS file if that is on someone's workbench, however, as
well as any other platforms with expectations to complete a port
by the release of 2.0b1.

> When would you see this becoming a beta?  The reason given 
> for not going straight to beta in January was that not enough 
> people had played with the code and it wasn't stable enough.  
> I believe both of those issues are disappearing now.

Disappearing but not disappeared.  And I'm guessing there is a
pretty major htdocs overhaul waiting in the wings prior to 2.0b1.

I'd like to see all modules working for a time.  Have we forgotten
mod_info, and scoreboard API on some other platforms (notably the
Win95 port) for mod_status?

I'd be pro-beta as soon as an admin can accomplish what they were
doing in 1.3 (not necessarily the same -way- they were doing it
in 1.3, however :-) and it's been stable for a few weeks.

I will be sure to update Status early this week with things we've
knocked off and things that are in the way of the Win32 release.
But given the newsgroup q's on 1.3.x, I'd love to kill our support
of the 'experimental' Win32 port asap.

> I have had conversations off-line with at least five more AG 
> members who would like to see this move forward.  I agitate for 
> this, because the more somebody agitates for stuff like this, 
> the faster it moves forward.

We wouldn't even be in alpha if it wasn't for your agitating
(or was that your agitation? :-)  In any case keep screaming,
since that's exactly how it moves forward.

View raw message