httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Date Mon, 21 May 2001 20:55:50 GMT
From: "Bill Stoddard" <bill@wstoddard.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 3:33 PM


> > On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 12:20:17PM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > > On 21 May 2001, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Bill Stoddard" <bill@wstoddard.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > I think we have a good shot at a beta candidate. I plan to tag the
tree
> > > > > early this afternoon (ET) unless I hear objections.
> > > >
> > > > I think it is fine for that tarball to go out as a beta as long as we
> > > > make a patch available for srclib/apr-util/Makefile.in to use with RH
> > > > 7.1 (and whatever other platforms may be affected).
> > >
> > > Whoah.  We have a tarball that we know doesn't build on RH 7.1 at the very
> > > least.  That is not a beta tarball.  That would be an alpha tarball.
> > > Release it as an alpha, at least that's my vote.
> >
> > Agreed. +1 on alpha. -0 on beta.
> >
> > (sounds like mod_dav_fs wasn't configuring properly either)
> 
> Any objections to making binaries available, or is that the definition of a
> beta ? :-) I want to get the server out in the world for folks to pound on.

+1 on alpha, if we roll in the tagged proxy.  Build any binaries anyone cares to, 
and call them alpha binaries!

We didn't build alpha binaries simply because 'end-users' couldn't help us solve
the problems they encoutered.  We have few-enough problems that we should let them
in on the act now, and that includes the couple non-compliant proxy servers.
Putting code/binaries in those programmers hands might even help them to get their
proxy act straightened out :-)

Bill


Mime
View raw message