Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 94487 invoked by uid 500); 11 Nov 2001 19:14:01 -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 94476 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2001 19:14:01 -0000 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 14:13:59 -0500 (EST) From: Cliff Woolley X-X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: 2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug Re: Two apache/2.0.29-dev problems) In-Reply-To: <20011111180029.4C0F446DFD@koj.rkbloom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > The question we need to ask is simple. Is 2.0.28 better than 2.0.16? > If so, then release it. If not, then don't. Absolutely. But, > Get 2.0.28 released. I'm about to make some major changes to the > core, and it could destabilize 2.0.29 for a few days. 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. --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley cliffwoolley@yahoo.com Charlottesville, VA