Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 45433 invoked by uid 500); 23 Aug 2001 20:27:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 45413 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2001 20:27:06 -0000 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:27:54 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Joshua Slive To: Subject: Re: 2.0.24 ready for beta? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-X-Sender: slive@finance.commerce.ubc.ca MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1133 On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote: > Like I said before, I'm still +1 for 2.0.24 for beta on Unix. I don't > much like the idea of calling it a beta only on Unix, but I won't veto the > idea. I'm +1 for a 2.0.24 beta as well. I'm +1 for beta for anything that a) compiles b) has no known security problems c) has significantly less bugs than 2.0.16. I think 2.0.24 qualifies. Joshua.