httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gregg L. Smith" <>
Subject Re: 2.4.0 GA This week?
Date Tue, 03 Jan 2012 08:30:49 GMT
My vote ... Stefan, wherever it fits (depends on whom I speak to) , 
these are showstoppers. But, it can be said these are one OS specific 
... which usually does not stop the press AFAIK. I can say however .. as 
a small time distributor ...  this will be noted as the problems yet 
remaining on this one platform (windows) ... and if these few problems 
do not affect any of my distributees ... then they should move on to 2.4.



On 1/2/2012 10:50 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 January 2012, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 1/2/2012 4:10 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>>> On Sunday 01 January 2012, Steffen wrote:
>>>> Also IMHO blocking GA:
>>>> - SSL on windows not usable
>>>> - Hanging "logging" workers
>>>> - Rewrite P
>>>> On Sunday 01/01/2012 at 19:03, Mario Brandt  wrote:
>>>>> The loadbalancer still crashes on windows. See
>>> We should try to get at least the rewrite/proxy issue resolved,
>>> first.
>>> About the Windows-onlly issues... Well, if there are not
>>> sufficient developers who have time and inclination to look into
>>> those, I would rather release 2.4.0 as "GA on unix, beta on
>>> Windows", than delay it indefinitely.
>> When we tag and roll 2.4.0, if it isn't up to snuff, it won't pass
>> the vote for GA, but perhaps it will pass the vote for beta (or
>> alpha).
>> I'm not sure where the impetus came from to change the way the HTTP
>> Project operates at this particular point in time.  It certainly
>> hasn't been discussed much on this list, or put up for a vote.
>> The methodology for handling releases was all hashed out a number
>> of years ago and was assembled from consensus.  Has that consensus
>> changed?
> No. The status of 2.4.0 will be determined by vote. I was just
> pointing out how I intend to vote in the face of the Windows issues
> and am lobbying for other people to consider this as a valid option,
> too.

View raw message