Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-ID: <001e01c09b9f$c8be8b90$94c0b0d0@roweclan.net>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
References: <200102191354.IAA15010@devsys.jaguNET.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102191931050.30830-100000@impatience.valueclick.com>
 <20010220014313.Z29904@lyra.org>
 <03ce01c09b59$63a3aec0$94c0b0d0@roweclan.net>
 <20010220154357.X29904@lyra.org>
Subject: Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:46:52 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

From: "Greg Stein" <gstein@lyra.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 5:43 PM

> That's my worry. And with a last-minute change, we have no feedback on the problem.
> 
> I'd like to see the change removed, a release made, then put the thing back
> in (and I'd say with a pstrdup). We can then add your W2K shutdown stuff.

Too late (sorry I wasn't following email for the last 30 minutes.)

Yes - pstrdup it was - this patch is applied.  I agree that was enough to throw the
release, and since we agree on that, I'm nixing the release of 1.3.18 on that possible 
bug.  Granted, we don't _know_ that it would have caused problems, but it would have 
been near impossible for the perl/jserv folks or whomever to untangle the bug if they 
ever hit it.

I have the fix for Win2K shutdown.  It was _very_ broken.  It is quite fixed, and
the patch is applied to CVS.  It _needs_ thorough testing ... could someones on the
respective php/jserv/perl module lists ask folks to bring down the current CVS tree 
for testing (or wait a little bit till we have a tarball?)  I'll be happy to throw 
out a 1.3.19-dev .zip file if that helps as well.

> I don't know... it just doesn't feel right to have this change go in at the
> 11th hour like that. Whether we keep it in or not, a better comfort factor
> would be nice. If we wait a week for the W2K fix, fine. But that one just
> bugs me a bit. It really would be nice to reach the point where 1.3 is a
> known quantity and can hang for a long while.

Fine, then let's drop the idea of releasing in the next 72 hours.  Test, test, test.
And then we can move ahead with, as someone (you?) pointed out, 

"We consider Apache [version] to be the best version of Apache available..."

The bug that was being addressed was worthy of a fix, and if we sneak the fix of the
fix in before we attempt to release, I will feel much more comfortable than if we
roll them all back.

Bill