Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4B1DD3A7.50604@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:18:47 -0600
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RESULTS] [VOTE] Release httpd 2.3.4-alpha
References: <4239a4320911251443r7b48e2d2m4da687ad4af9bfbb@mail.gmail.com>
 <4239a4320912031352u4e25db13i4e89921c97a1cff@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.GSO.4.64.0912071353520.11464@hatchepsut.acc.umu.se>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0912071353520.11464@hatchepsut.acc.umu.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Paul Querna wrote:
> 
>> Vote Results:
>>   +1 (binding): Sander Temme, Paul Querna, Joe Orton,  Niklas Edmundsson,
>>   +1: Gregg Smith
>> +/-0: Rainer Jung
>>    -1: William A. Rowe, Jr.
>>
>> Vote passes.
> 
> Ehrm. I obviously should have changed the subject when I agreed to
> wrowe's statement about including PCRE in the deps tarball.
> 
> It was not my intention to vote on the Alpha-release, but to concur with
> wrowe's statement, as can be seen in the archive at:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200912.mbox/<Pine.GSO.4.64.0912021042540.12387@hatchepsut.acc.umu.se>
> 
> So, my vote is to be considered a false positive I'm afraid. I'll
> definitely be more careful about this in the future so automated voting
> counts don't get confused.

As it turns out, Jeff had also voted +1, so the vote count was previously;

   +1 (binding): Sander Temme, Paul Querna, Joe Orton, Jeff Trawick
   +1: Gregg Smith
 +/-0: Rainer Jung
   -1: William A. Rowe, Jr.

As my vote was against releasing -deps, and with -deps released, I was otherwise
+1 to the httpd-2.3.4-alpha.tar packages.  Packages are not unreleased once they
have been released to the mirrors, and it's not like I haven't been criticized
for that in the past (thus there are a few -r2.msi packages floating around).

I apologize for perhaps not detailing my objections clearly enough when the
issues were first up, e.g. the way I put them in response to Joe Orton's post,
today.  And I was equally dismayed that the release was shoved at /dist/, but
once that happened, my objections are entirely moot.

Paul, you prefer that I'm not so overbearing and pedantic, while I'd prefer
that you are more attentive to objections that are raised when they are first
raised, and probe for more information to solve them.  There's plenty of room
to agree to disagree, and even more room to come up with agreeable resolutions.

If you need fewer emails, and faster bandwidth, I'm always happy to pound through
an entire disagreement with anyone on the irc httpd-dev channel in realtime, and
bring our thoughts back to this discussion list.

Anyway, 2.3.4 is done and waiting for your announce text, and is in no real
hurry for that message since many of the people who would further review that
alpha follow this list.  But it would be helpful on the web site and especially
in the /dist/ directory, for people who stumble upon 2.3.4-alpha and wonder what
exactly it is.