Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: 76.96.27.243 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of jim@jagunet.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Subject: Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <201006022003.32046.sf@sfritsch.de>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 14:07:10 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4E89E43D-7B8C-4D19-A2DF-942485252C1F@jaguNET.com>
References: <E678BC45-95F3-460B-A2CA-47880601EAB8@apache.org>
 <AANLkTimqSWNFh-gONit093qrgGdgk6i9wh6I9Ts5jgwJ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4BE95D57-0793-445B-B80E-6212A309A5CB@apache.org>
 <201006022003.32046.sf@sfritsch.de>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org


On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:

> On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Sander Temme wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com>=20
> wrote:
>>>> I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week in
>>>> hopes that we can push out a beta v. soon after.
>>>=20
>>> Were infra's concerns wrapped up from the last alpha?
>>=20
>> I'm sorry, I've had blackouts covering this list.  What were their
>> concerns?  Were they discussed on this list?
>=20
>=20
> There was at least some mod_deflate issue
>=20
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-
> =
dev/201002.mbox/<4239a4321002131130y2bbc9f99kba057e06e81850b@mail.gmail.co=
m>
>=20
> which was fixed in r910069. There was also talk about a mem leak but=20=

> IIRC it was unclear if it is in httpd itself or in mod_mbox. I don't=20=

> know if there were more concerns.

tags are cheap. If soon after 2.3.6 I need to do a 2.3.7
then I'm alright with that ;)=