httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: Releasing 2.0.41
Date Fri, 06 Sep 2002 21:28:40 GMT
While I appreciate the desire to not hold up releases, sometimes just saying
we aim for a release at the end of the week or so on, with the RM having the
final say, gives people who are lazy by nature (guess who I mean) a nudge to
get off their behinds and do something (build/test/fix etc etc).

I'm +1 for Sander being RM and +1 for him rolling when he sees fit, just
giving another viewpoint :)

david

> At 03:58 PM 9/6/2002, rbb@apache.org wrote:
> >On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Dale Ghent wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Greg Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > | You can always do a 2.0.42 next week if you'd like.
> > >
> > > argh, we have to remember... Apache 2.0 is GA, not beta!
> >
> >No, it is not.  Apache 2.0.40 is GA.  Apache 2.0 is a nonentity.  2.0.41
> >will start out as alpha, then be moved to beta, and finally to GA when
and
> >if we believe it is GA quality.  Do NOT believe that just because 2.0.40
> >was GA, 2.0.41 will be too.  We specifically said that wasn't true for
2.0.
>
> Exactly.  The only reason folks may be puzzled by this change is that .40,
> .39 and .36 flew out the door in pretty much one pass.  That's simply
because
> the security bugs they addressed outweighed any comparison.
>
> If .41 is worse than .40 (or .36 for that matter) it shouldn't leave beta
> for GA.
> Bugs new to .40/.41 get fixed, then .42 will be released (alpha, then
beta)
> and if it's *finally* better than .36 or .40 we can release it GA quality,
with
> the seal of quality
>
>    "We consider Apache 2.0.x to be the best version of Apache available"
>
> Thanks for reminding us of this, Ryan.
>
> Sander, care to tag today even, before the tree is shaken again ;-?
>
> Bill
>
>


Mime
View raw message