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 B27F4C383 for ; Sat, 12 May 2012 00:49:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 21999 invoked by uid 500); 12 May 2012 00:49:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 21944 invoked by uid 500); 12 May 2012 00:49:52 -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 21931 invoked by uid 99); 12 May 2012 00:49:52 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 12 May 2012 00:49:52 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of trawick@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.45 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.45] (HELO mail-vb0-f45.google.com) (209.85.212.45) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 12 May 2012 00:49:47 +0000 Received: by vbbfn1 with SMTP id fn1so3047173vbb.18 for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 17:49:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JT6irEYt7jegsqwkxhH0e4XDlfidclh5bUQZ86OyLLk=; b=0Vp6HbMQgAXp8NFUh/JkvpJrqwwn1KmY4wAGiGMzpsVnPjspg2ZIC/lHPX8U50pFQ4 VSyt0Uc+ap+Fliw6rgP7Oxn89lkRrogI+Oc4mJyMQNd5vtXNwaYz40tenLYXOhpENLFT Og1mZSRpqcwB4OT67zySdUObYPN8ZUs5TcdktjJWi7yfpJbj3nUGH5EuU6Iy6SU3f/oO RYHC4jj/W72RxVb/MuJX2BaXVHtVqiLiFiqaleZ/PpCzSQzoSs8piIx/3iqkQQWQzQS6 o7kBu1SJU+uDqThd+znqVt3Ht0zQDqwac/6dO4Jcwt4npjn81M8hGEd6OZShlu8kcOHV uibQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.153.80 with SMTP id j16mr71338vcw.55.1336783766197; Fri, 11 May 2012 17:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.154.7 with HTTP; Fri, 11 May 2012 17:49:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FAD9E1B.9090601@rowe-clan.net> References: <90E76ABC-29E3-4AB1-9213-755051C218EA@medecine.uhp-nancy.fr> <4FAA5DF9.4060902@cord.dk> <07AB601C-8DBE-41BF-B37C-AC0B79951876@medecine.uhp-nancy.fr> <2C0456A8-4C78-4FA4-880B-5CE60044024B@medecine.uhp-nancy.fr> <73B47BBD-0BA4-4131-A3F8-0A7AC7CAA781@rcbowen.com> <4FAB9F09.5070000@cord.dk> <4FAD9E1B.9090601@rowe-clan.net> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 20:49:26 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Googling for documentation From: Jeff Trawick To: dev@httpd.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 5/10/2012 7:18 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: >> >>> >>> 1) Are the 2.0 docs at their end-of-life soon? (or should this be >>> declared by dev@?) >> >> This should be based on statistics, not gut feelings. However, my gut fe= eling is that the >> time is nigh. How long has it been since 2.2.0? > > If we agree to never again release 2.0 on the dev@ list, and actively ret= ire 2.0 just > as we had done with 1.3, problem solved. =A0But I'm not seeing it solved = yet. =A0I had hoped > to tag and roll 2.0.65 final at some point but it doesn't seem like there= is any energy > here to actually go forward with integrating security fixes and rolling s= omething out. > Does anyone have a different perspective? IOW, does anyone want to review what we have in 2.0.x/STATUS? Tangent: The 4317 fix has a regression noted on this list, so there's no use rolling 2.0.65 until that is resolved. --=20 Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/