Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 19671 invoked by uid 500); 6 Sep 2002 21:26:12 -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 19658 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2002 21:26:12 -0000 Message-ID: <002f01c255ec$5e8543f0$7300a8c0@MITHRIL> From: "David Reid" To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020906160248.03537bd0@pop3.rowe-clan.net> Subject: Re: Releasing 2.0.41 Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 22:28:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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 > >