httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brad Nicholes" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 2.1.3 as beta
Date Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:22:33 GMT
+1 on NetWare.  

>>> Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:52:23 AM >>>
--On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:37 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."

<> wrote:

> Uhm, no.  By that definition, all the pollution spewed from typical
> Linux libraries would be considered 'public api.'  Other platforms
> are using the construct to extract public symbol lists now, IIUC.
> APR_DECLARE (DAV_DECLARE, etc)is our shorthand of what has been
> publicizied and what is internal.

No, we never declared them, hence they weren't officially part of the
The fact that Unix-based OSes technically throw everything into the API
part of our API contract.

Note that I'm not saying that making the mod_dav API change isn't good,
I'm miffed at the claim that this is justification to -1 a release.

> Actually, it should (if it can be fixed in these few days) be
> part of the 2.1.4.

Good, then I hope that statement is backed with a willingness to be the
RM for 
2.1.4.  (As you may or may not know, I'm traveling in the next few days
will have sporadic 'net/email access.)

> I'm a little curious - I understood we would tag an ALPHA, decide
> if it was 'good enough', then call it BETA.  I certainly don't think
> that the last tarballs were good enough for that.

My estimation of a beta is that it works for some folks but not
others.  Sure, it might have bugs.  In fact, from our release

"Beta indicates that at least three committers have voted positively
for beta 
status and there were more positive than negative votes for beta
This indicates that it is expected to compile and perform basic tasks.

However, there may be problems with this release that prohibit its

Perhaps we have a disagreement over what a beta release means?

My intention with 2.1.3 is to get us moving solidly in the direction of
2.2.x release - not see more time lost because we can't agree on a
'beta' release.  A beta release needs not to be perfect - that's what a

release stabilization branch is for - to fix up these issues in time
for a GA 

We have yet to publicize outside of dev@httpd *any* 2.1.x release and
that is 
really disturbing.  I want us to start making noise about the upcoming
releases.  We ought to give our third-parties plenty of time to update
modules - frankly, most won't need it, but we should give them time to
do that.

2.1.3 compiles and serves pages for me on Darwin.  So, my +1 for beta
holds.  -- justin

View raw message