Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:07:05 +0100
From: Colm MacCarthaigh <colm@stdlib.net>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Upcoming 2.0.56 release (?)
Message-ID: <20060327100705.GA20499@dochas.stdlib.net>
Reply-To: colm@stdlib.net
References: <4427A1BF.9080002@rowe-clan.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4427A1BF.9080002@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 02:26:39AM -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 :) 

Just a minor change to our sometime-adopted procedure that might help
non-APR httpd-committers out. 

I've finally deleted that patch proposal which made no sense and taken a
look at some more of the proposals. 

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?

-- 
Colm MacC�rthaigh                        Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net