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: <0db801c11a51$e3433430$93c0b0d0@roweclan.net>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.32.0108010048130.27049-100000@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: 2.0.23?
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 01:19:11 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

From: "Cliff Woolley" <cliffwoolley@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 12:14 AM


> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 
> > > also happens without either.  i just hit this in the modperl 'make
> > > test' after syncing.  its related to this change:
> > >
> > > cvs diff -r1.333 -r1.334 modules/http/http_protocol.c
> > >
> > > after backing it out (not committed yet) things are working again.
> >
> > Yup.  My bad.  I've backed it out.  Thank you for finding this!
> 
> This is yet another problem with 2.0.22, and a rather troublesome one at
> that.  Thanks for the research, guys.  Good work.
> 
> There are enough things wrong with 2.0.22 that are already fixed that I'm
> going to go ahead and tag 2.0.23 first thing Thursday morning as I
> suggested in my State of the beta email.  If it turns out to be obviously
> better than 2.0.22, which I believe it will, then we'll go with 2.0.23
> instead.  Of course, we still technically have a "go ahead" vote for
> 2.0.22 as a beta... we'll kind of have a tarball death match to see which
> one wins more support as a beta.  =-)

Cool :)

> In the meanwhile, I'd ask everyone to please give 2.0.23-dev a really good
> shakedown and let's try to make sure any lingering build errors are
> cleaned up.  Sorry if this process has been tedious, but I want this beta
> to really shine.

Is 15 hrs a day enough :-?

> PS: Fixes for the Mac OS X/Darwin problem have still not been committed.
> It was two problems... one of which was the version of buildconf on
> icarus, no doubt (hence the old config.guess in the tarball).  I'll see
> what I can do about that.  The other problem probably just needs a
> configure check added or maybe some hints magic... can someone with a
> Darwin box please do me a favor and fix this the right way, please?

I would really really like to see that fixed, if we go to the trouble of 
dumping 2.0.22.  There was also that one question about the linux build,
as well, and David's apu_dbm headaches.

Bill