Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 81098 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2001 14:23:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 80766 invoked from network); 11 May 2001 14:23:41 -0000 Errors-To: Message-ID: <020301c0da25$be06dda0$94c0b0d0@roweclan.net> Reply-To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." To: , References: <200105111405.KAA00680@devsys.jaguNET.com> Subject: Re: Proposed Code Freeze for 1.3.20 Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:21:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N From: "Jim Jagielski" Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 9:05 AM > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > > > Let's drop the word freeze from our vocabulary, and use the phrase > > feature-freeze so we stop having this silly discussion. We aren't agreed on > > how to fork the code for maintenance, and until we come to a concensus, we > > need to continue on the old way of doing things. > > > > Of course, last-minute "bug fixes" have also resulted in problems > that have required re-releases in short order. So yeah, maybe "freeze" > isn't a good term, but generally what we mean is "we plan on > tagging and rolling soon and want to reduce the risk of > problems on the present code tree so we would really like > it if no new features are added and bug fixes be as risk-free > as possible". :) Wait, what _he_ said... yeah, that's what I meant :-) The whole point is, let's get (in our words) "the best version of Apache available" out the door.