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 11:31:36 +0100
From: Colm MacCarthaigh <colm@stdlib.net>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Upcoming 2.0.56 release (?)
Message-ID: <20060327103136.GA21766@dochas.stdlib.net>
Reply-To: colm@stdlib.net
References: <4427A1BF.9080002@rowe-clan.net>
 <20060327100705.GA20499@dochas.stdlib.net>
 <200603271121.47996.nick@webthing.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <200603271121.47996.nick@webthing.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:21:46AM +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Monday 27 March 2006 11:07, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Huh?  Who's talking about downgrading?

Until now, we've always had 3 days of 2.0 in production on ASF hardware
before going GA, and I'm wondering if we now treat 2.0 like 1.3 and not
do this on apache.org, or we politely ask infra to try out the candidate
(I don't think there's any 2.2-only features being used on a.o).

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