Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
In-Reply-To: 
 <3B21A253728EA247A10A692547A271538DCCAB@EITO-MBX03.internal.vodafone.com>
References: 
 <3B21A253728EA247A10A692547A271538DCCAB@EITO-MBX03.internal.vodafone.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Message-Id: <451F6A8B-AFF5-48C7-ADE1-4325275BEFBB@jaguNET.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5,
 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs for review
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:10:54 -0400
To: dev@httpd.apache.org


On Aug 13, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Pl=FCm, R=FCdiger, VF-Group wrote:

>
>
>> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Nick Kew
>> Gesendet: Montag, 13. August 2007 14:54
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release
>> candidate tarballs for review
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:02:53 -0400
>> Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Depending on the speed in which APR 0.9.15, we may
>>> go ahead with a fully combined 1.3/2.0/2.2 release
>>> (as originally planned)
>>
>> Rushed schedules lead to more bugs ...
>>
>>> 	 or release 1.3/2.2 earlier
>>> than 2.0...
>>
>> Maybe put out the announcements together, with "2.0 availability
>> delayed briefly due to issues with the bundled APR".
>
> So I would say lets drop a 2.0.x release this time completely and
> release 2.0.61 in conjunction with 2.2.6 in about 8 weeks (as planned
> by Jim for 2.2.6). This should be enough time to get apr 0.9.15 out
> of the door without too much rush.
>

2.0.60/61 does have a few CVS vuln's that would be nice
to close and release earlier than 2 months from now :)=