Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 66570 invoked by uid 500); 18 May 2001 20:16:44 -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 66308 invoked from network); 18 May 2001 20:16:08 -0000 Message-ID: <03ea01c0dfd8$504cbbf0$bd431b09@sashimi> From: "Bill Stoddard" To: , "William A. Rowe, Jr." References: <020501c0dfad$8f5ee0f0$bd431b09@sashimi> <3B053949.14AB3235@sharp.fm> <011001c0dfb5$79ee0310$94c0b0d0@roweclan.net> <026c01c0dfb8$09d4a040$bd431b09@sashimi> <00b301c0dfd2$c9428540$94c0b0d0@roweclan.net> Subject: Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:22:51 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N > From: "Bill Stoddard" > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 11:31 AM > > > > The tree is tagged. We are on 2.0.19-dev. Commit away :-) > > This didn't answer the question below, did we toss proxy into the tarball? > No. I rolled the tarball before I saw the request to add proxy. > I'm -1 on releasing this tarball upon the world without rolling in the efforts > of our proxy hackers! Cough, cough, bullshit, cough :-) For several reasons. First, the showstoppers for going for the next beta candidate were discussed over this week and last and they have been resolved. We did not identify proxy as a showstopper. Second, I see talk on the APR dev list of some major function shuffeling about to happen. Since the tree is relatively stable now and we do not freeze development before tagging a tree, now seems to be a good time to try for a beta. I guarantee that the APR changes will break compiles on some OS for at least the next week if not longer. And we can get a lot of good beta feedback w/o proxy. Third, we have not decided the best way to distribute the proxy. It has been discussed at length but I don;t recall a final decision (I really have no opinions on whether the proxy is included in the httpd-2.0 tree or not). It is not a big deal to roll the proxy tarball and make it available to work with 2.0.18. We can include it next time around. Finally, unless I am mistaken, Chuck believes there are still showstopper problems with the proxy and it is not a beta candidate (the Akamai problems). This should -by far- be the best release of Apache 2.0 to date. If it is beta quality, it would be foolish not to release it to the world. My $.02 Bill