Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020906160248.03537bd0@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 16:10:03 -0500
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: Releasing 2.0.41
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0209061656320.11419-100000@shell.ntrnet.net>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0209061650520.13668-100000@lithium.elemental.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

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