Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 78151 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 20:30:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 20:30:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 9791 invoked by uid 97); 24 Apr 2002 20:30:09 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 9777 invoked by uid 97); 24 Apr 2002 20:30:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Tomcat Developers List" Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 9766 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 20:30:08 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: costinm owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:29:22 -0700 (PDT) From: X-X-Sender: To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Plan for Apache Tomcat 4.1 In-Reply-To: <3CC6EBE9.BEFDF38C@voyager.apg.more.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Glenn Nielsen wrote: > There are a few additional items I would like to see added. > > 1. Port my recent mod_jk/apache1.3 new features to mod_jk/Apache2.0 > and to jk2 as costin requested. This makes those connectors for > use with Apache more consistent. mod_jk2 has lower priority - there is no chance it'll be 'release quality' in this time frame. I do hope to have it ready for a beta, but for 4.1 ( and 4.0.x, 3.3.x ) mod_jk1 remains the server connector. coyote-Jk2 is stable as a Ajp13/Socket connector - i.e. all that matter for mod_jk1. The Unix socket and all advanced features of jk2/java will not be 'release quality' either ( but with a bit of luck and some help from Nacho and maybe others we can have them working and beta-level). > I also think the release schedule is too aggressive. I would like to > hold off on a beta 1 until May 10, beta 2 May 24, RC 1 June 3. We could switch the numbering scheme to follow the 'original' idea - numbered milestones. Like Apache 2 is doing. Instead of beta1, RC1, etc - we'll just use 4.1.0, 4.1.1, etc - with the 'release quality' happening when everyone is happy. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: