httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 2.0.65
Date Tue, 02 Oct 2012 17:24:14 GMT
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Any others with time to look thru 2.0.65's STATUS file.
> There are a handful of "showstoppers" that I'm thinking
> about "deferring" and pushing ahead with the 2.0.65 release.

I'll try to find a little time.

My 2 cents (which I won't throw at any group of 3 that wants to put
out a 2.0.nnn): I don't think we should "defer" anything.  Given the
lack of time+interest, IMO the only 2.0.x after 2.0.65 should be to
resolve unintended regressions introduced with 2.0.65, and bugs left
unfixed in 2.0.65 can remain.  Then we wash our hands of it.

>
> On Oct 1, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't recall either, but doing so in conjunction with
>> the 2.0.65 release likely makes sense.
>>
>> On Sep 30, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DRuggeri@primary.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/30/2012 10:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> There was an email on users@httpd that reminded me that 2.0.65 has
>>>> been long left in a holding pattern.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone opposed to me pushing for a 2.0.65 release by the
>>>> end of this week?
>>>
>>> No opposition, but this does remind me about the when-will-2.0-be-EOL
>>> conversation. I think consensus was 1 year after the first 2.4 release
>>> but I don't think I've seen such an announcement (I could have just
>>> missed it, too).
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Ruggeri
>>>
>>
>



-- 
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/

Mime
View raw message