httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: Thoughts on 2.0.32
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2002 00:46:51 GMT
From: "Ryan Bloom" <>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 5:52 PM

> > Since it sounds like Win32 is busted (I'd say it'd be fine to
> > say that .31 is beta but doesn't work on Win32, but wrowe doesn't
> > like that),
> IMNSHO, .31 should be released as a beta, with the understanding that it
> doesn't work on Win32.  That is a PITA, but it wouldn't be the first
> time that a release of Apache didn't work the same on all platforms.

.31 is an alpha already.  What is the point of releasing something with such
issues?  I would consider a similar bug exclusively on Linux or Solaris also
a showstopper.

> > how about just taking the .31 tree, tagging *that* as
> > .32, and carefully bumping files that resolve issues into .32 and
> > the RM can carefully decide which other recent commits/changes are
> > worthy of inclusion in .32?
> I strongly disagree with doing this.  Watching each commit to determine
> if it belongs in .32 is completely against our release model.  Either
> the code keeps moving forward or it doesn't, let's not bastardize the
> release model.

Ok, so we shouldn't work through our yet-unproven release model?

If we can't get the release model right in early development, we will end
up on the same treadmill as 1.3.x.  When I joined the list, there hadn't
been a release for a few months.  There wasn't a new release for almost a
year after I started hacking on the server.

The first bug of Win32 is fixed (error logging to the event viewer), the
second is not a showstopper (path names cannot start with /) although I need
to finish testing to assure that this bug isn't harming other aspects of 
the server, and the third I will wrap up in a few hours (bad arguments created
by apache -k install).  

There is little reason not to wait for these two/three patches - checkout
31, cvs up -A server/mpm/winnt, and then release that code.  This cannot
harm Unix (reasonably well tested for a first pass) and the code can be
tested by everyone.

Is anyone besides Ryan concerned about releasing a .32 with alpha-bugs 
only fixed, and then .33 with all the new bells and whistles (or destablizing
code, depending on how you look at it :) ... then .34 with its fixes?
Or are we all happy with the release model as it stands?


View raw message