From dev-return-73653-apmail-httpd-dev-archive=httpd.apache.org@httpd.apache.org Sun Dec 4 15:41:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8CCFB938F for ; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 15:41:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 45750 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2011 15:41:58 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 45691 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2011 15:41:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 45683 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2011 15:41:58 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:41:58 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [188.40.99.202] (HELO eru.sfritsch.de) (188.40.99.202) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:41:52 +0000 Received: from stf (helo=localhost) by eru.sfritsch.de with local-esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RXEC2-0001d2-GI for dev@httpd.apache.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:41:30 +0100 Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 16:41:30 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Fritsch To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Are we there yet? In-Reply-To: <3726A5C0-05FE-4DFD-BDBD-84CC408EA8F8@jaguNET.com> Message-ID: References: <201112030048.19359.sf@sfritsch.de> <3726A5C0-05FE-4DFD-BDBD-84CC408EA8F8@jaguNET.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Sun, 4 Dec 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote: > There seems to be a lot of renewed effort in getting 2.4/trunk is a > really releasable state, which is all Goodness. Ideally, I'd like > to release 2.4.0 before the end of the year, but starting off > 2012 with a new httpd release also makes some sense as well. I was kind of hoping for GA before Christmas... > With all the changes, I would like to have another 'beta' release > simply to try to work out any remaining issues, but my fear is > that this would also encourage a lot of rework rather than > polishing (if you get my drift). So tagging as a RC puts us in > the more correct state of mind. +1 for a RC ASAP. Do you have time to RM again? Would we name that RC 2.4.0 or would we release 2.3.16 from the 2.4.x branch? We could also consider putting the focus more on polishing by making API changes and large refactorings review-then-commit. Probably with the exception of the proxy/slotmem plans that were already put forward on the list. I would also like to know what more people think about the error message tag thing? AAUI Rich, Graham, and myself are for including it in 2.4 now, while Nick prefers to wait. If we decide to wait, it should maybe be reverted from trunk, too, to make merging of commits to 2.4 easier.