httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Colm MacCarthaigh <>
Subject Re: Upcoming 2.0.56 release (?)
Date Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:10:11 GMT
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 12:46:05PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >>Provided that passes, and if nobody speaks quickly and loudly, I'll
> >>RM a tarball once that vote on dev@apr flies.  Speak now if there
> >>are issues :)
> >
> >I don't know if it's implicit or not, but we shouldn't bundle
> >unreleased libraries, so it shouldn't be enough that an apr(-util)
> >passed the vote, it should be GA too. We need thicker chinese walls
> >:) 
> Explain the distinction :)  AFAIK APR is holding a vote on releasing
> 0.9.11.  AFAIK APR just held a vote and released 1.2.6.  APR hasn't
> released any alpha/beta versions in a very long time (probably
> wouldn't either, until they get ready for APR 2.)

Oh I just mean that the tarballs be generally available, ie that apr
actually have released. In the past, there have been httpd votes which
incorporated an unreleased apr, though it was clear that it would be
released by the time httpd was. Now there are some more httpd folk who
are not apr folk, and it can be confusing.

> >I've finally deleted that patch proposal which made no sense and
> >taken a look at some more of the proposals. 
> Rather than delete it - you could have also added the subsequent
> patches that were applied to server/mpm/winnt/mpm_winnt.c.  I put in
> that comment to prod FirstBill to clarify which later patches were
> necessary.

I brought it up on list 3 times, including specifically asking what
people meant by the proposal and got nothing, so now it's gone. 

I couldn't add those patches (it's not even clear what patches were
being talked about), as it's not clear that that's what the people voted
on. I guess I could have replaced it with a different proposal and reset
the vote count to zero. 

> >Since this is our first post 2.2 GA release, do we still want
> >feedback from infra? downgrading a.o might send some bad signals ;-)
> >Or maybe there's a subdomain or two running 2.0 still?
> I think we have alot of sandboxes, but it's true that we aren't quite
> in shape to eat our own dogfood on 2.0.x anymore.  On the other hand,
> we haven't been running 1.3.x in a very long time, and yet (and
> rarely) ship a 1.3.x without passing that metric.  I doubt we can ever
> return to that state, but if there are zones running 2.0 it would be
> nice to get this validated in the real world.
> On the other hand, it's a sorry state that we can't run anything other
> than -dev today, I do expect 2.2.1 to be running on our post 2.0
> infrastructure before it will garner my +1.


Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key:

View raw message