httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Bloom <...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: 2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug Re: Two apache/2.0.29-dev problems)
Date Sun, 11 Nov 2001 23:42:26 GMT
On Sunday 11 November 2001 11:39 am, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > IMO, it'd be better to tag 2.0.29 right now with a pretty stable tree
> > that's by all accounts better than 2.0.28.  It's that or get bug reports
> > for the next n weeks about things we've already fixed.  Just a thought.
>
> Scratch that.  I see 2.0.28 was never officially rolled (even though some
> of us saw a candidate tarball).  So retag 2.0.28 all you want, Greg, or
> don't.  Anyway, forget I mentioned the 2.0.29 thing.
>
> FYI, I just checked, and these are the changes that have been committed
> since 2.0.28 was last tagged:
>
>  - fix infinite loop in mod_cgid
>  - fix segfault in prefork
>  - fix build problems on Win32 (mktemp)
>  - fix multithreading problem on BSDi (-D_REENTRANT)
>  - fix file cleanup problems in apr_proc_create
>  - fix BeOS User/Group problem
>  - include for memcpy in apr/user/unix/userinfo.c
>  - fail if shared modules without mod_so
>  - warn if a module is loaded twice
>  - various performance optimizations
>  - ap_lingering_close changes
>  - apr-util dbm changes
>  - add debian layout
>  - various doc fixes

Stop tagging 2.0.28.  Half the changes above have nothing to do with bugs
in the server.  They are new features or improvements in the code.

If we bump the 2.0.28 tag for all of these, we would be better to just roll 2.0.29.
Just release 2.0.28 already.

Ryan

______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom				rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies			rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------

Mime
View raw message