httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Date Mon, 04 Feb 2002 18:59:23 GMT
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 06:51:59PM -0000, wrowe@apache.org wrote:
> wrowe       02/02/04 10:51:59
> 
>   Modified:    .        STATUS
>   Log:
>     Brrr... it's frigid in Chicago today!  Hope FirstBill doesn't mind if
>     I speak for us both here.
>   
>   Revision  Changes    Path
>   1.453     +7 -5      httpd-2.0/STATUS
>   
>   Index: STATUS
>   ===================================================================
>   RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/STATUS,v
>   retrieving revision 1.452
>   retrieving revision 1.453
>   diff -u -r1.452 -r1.453
>   --- STATUS	4 Feb 2002 18:41:45 -0000	1.452
>   +++ STATUS	4 Feb 2002 18:51:59 -0000	1.453
>   @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>    APACHE 2.0 STATUS:						-*-text-*-
>   -Last modified at [$Date: 2002/02/04 18:41:45 $]
>   +Last modified at [$Date: 2002/02/04 18:51:59 $]
>    
>    Release:
>    
>   @@ -45,9 +45,9 @@
>            running on Daedalus since  02-Feb-2002 7:58 PST (need 3 days)
>            Compiles on : AIX 4.3, Solaris, FreeBSD 3.4 & 4.5, Win32, Linux 2.2 &
2.4
>            for beta
>   -            +1 : Justin, Ian, Jeff Trawick, BillS, BrianP, Aaron, Jim
>   +            +1 : Justin, Ian, Jeff Trawick, BrianP, Aaron, Jim
>                +0 : Lars
>   -            -1 :
>   +            -1 : BillS, BillR
>            bumps since original tag:
>                * mod-dir patch
>                * scoreboard x2 : 1 to fix gracefull restarts
>   @@ -77,8 +77,10 @@
>                    +1: Justin, Cliff, Aaron, BillS, Jim, trawick
>                    +0:
>                    -1:
>   -            * hasn't run for 3 days on Daedalus 
>   -            * the release has underscores instead of periods.
>   +
>   +            * FirstBill reports problem [re]starting as-a-service, shared
>   +              score is suspect.  OtherBill is investigating, definately
>   +              a showstopper for a .31/.32 beta.  Progress report later today.

This is a BETA, it is not perfect. The biggest benefit we get from
releasing a beta is _Beta Testers_. It seems to me that we are *very*
close to GA, but I will not be in support of a gold release without
significantly more beta visibility and testing than we've had.

This particular problem aparently has a workaround: Don't run it as a
service on win32.

Although it looks like we have a comfortable majority in favor of
releasing this as a beta, I'd feel better if there were no -1 votes. Can
I pursuade you to change your mind for the above reasons?

-aaron

Mime
View raw message