You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> on 1999/06/03 21:02:18 UTC
Releasing 1.3.7
(No-one has demurred, so I'm assuming I'll be RM for 1.3.7.)
I think we should start preparing to roll out 1.3.7. I'd like
to get it out the door by the end of June, 1999. We have a couple
of significant fixes to put out there, and this is an essential
step before we can populate the 2.0 module.
I'd like to suggest a modification to the historical release process.
Namely, I'd like to 'freeze' CVS and tag it as 1.3.7b1, build
some tarballs, announce it to the tester lists, and if nothing
crops up in 72 hours, retag it as 1.3.7 and proceed with a normal
rollout. This way we won't lose 1.3.7 if some critical problem
shows up; we just fix it, reset to 1.3.7b2, and try again. It
also puts the testers ahead of the release curve, rather than
behind it. Any comments?
If anyone has any favourite fixes or features they want to get
in for 1.3.7, I recommend getting them in soon. Please review
any patches noted in the STATUS file and vote, or add any you
notice are missing.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>
[PATCH] binbuild.sh (was: Re: Releasing 1.3.7)
Posted by Eli Marmor <ma...@elmar.co.il>.
Hello,
I posted a simple but important patch for binbuild.sh:
http://www.progressive-comp.com/Lists/?l=apache-new-httpd&m=92659201703269&w=2
Before 1.3.7 is released, is there anybody who takes care for this
patch? May the original author (Lars Eilebrecht <la...@apache.org>)
help?
Thanks,
--
Eli Marmor
Re: Releasing 1.3.7
Posted by Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at>.
Jim Jagielski <ji...@devsys.jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
>and the mass vhosting doesn't, AFAIK, break any current
>behaviors (although I admit I haven't fully tested it).
The only thing it changes is where UseCanonicalName is valid -- in
order to stop customers from breaking the logging of %V it is no
longer allowed in .htaccess files.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch dot@dotat.at fanf@demon.net black dog
Re: Releasing 1.3.7
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@raleigh.ibm.com>.
> Are these squeeze-em-in changes (EAPI, mass vhosting, ...) significant
> enough to require a new beta cycle? If yes, then we should probably
> do 1.3.7 to get the bug fixes out there, then 1.4b1 to get these
> features in, then 1.4.0 when they're there, and then 2.0. Hmmm..
> sounds familiar. :->
Is the MM library going into 1.3.7 as well? I seem to remember hearing
that it was. If it is, I have an issue with it. The current MM library
has each function beginning with MM_foo. This function is moving down to
APR as soon as I have time to get back to the UNIX side of the world. If
we are hoping to limit the number of changes to modules, those function
names should change to ap_foo before we release. Even if those ap_foo
functions are just wrappers to the MM_foo calls.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@raleigh.ibm.com
4205 S Miami Blvd
RTP, NC 27709 It's a beautiful sight to see good dancers
doing simple steps. It's a painful sight to
see beginners doing complicated patterns.
Re: Releasing 1.3.7
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Randy Terbush wrote:
>
> I think the changes proposed for 1.3.7 merit a change to 1.4.0. While
> the EAPI stuff seems to be relatively stable, I think that we will
> uncover other problems when placed in more hands. The repository name
> is a problem though. Albiet a minor one.
>
> +1 for 1.4.0
Are these squeeze-em-in changes (EAPI, mass vhosting, ...) significant
enough to require a new beta cycle? If yes, then we should probably
do 1.3.7 to get the bug fixes out there, then 1.4b1 to get these
features in, then 1.4.0 when they're there, and then 2.0. Hmmm..
sounds familiar. :->
If the changes are not big enough to require a beta cycle, then they
should go in now and the release should be called 1.3.7. If they *are*
so significant, then they should wait until 2.0. I can't see any
reason why we want to do a 1.4.0 sequence.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>
RE: Releasing 1.3.7
Posted by Randy Terbush <ra...@covalent.net>.
I think the changes proposed for 1.3.7 merit a change to 1.4.0. While
the EAPI stuff seems to be relatively stable, I think that we will
uncover other problems when placed in more hands. The repository name
is a problem though. Albiet a minor one.
+1 for 1.4.0
> -----Original Message-----
> From: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
> [mailto:new-httpd-owner@apache.org]On
> Behalf Of Dean Gaudet
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 1999 11:51 AM
> To: Apache Developers
> Subject: Re: Releasing 1.3.7
>
>
> I think a release is a good idea...
>
> I just question why we're inventing another new numbering scheme...
>
> why not do 1.4b1 and then release 1.4.0 in a month. I'm
> serious. EAPI
> is almost a good enough reason on its own... plus the other
> features we've
> snuck in...
>
> after all they're all just numbers ;)
>
> Dean
>
> On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> > (No-one has demurred, so I'm assuming I'll be RM for 1.3.7.)
> >
> > I think we should start preparing to roll out 1.3.7. I'd like
> > to get it out the door by the end of June, 1999. We have a couple
> > of significant fixes to put out there, and this is an essential
> > step before we can populate the 2.0 module.
> >
> > I'd like to suggest a modification to the historical
> release process.
> > Namely, I'd like to 'freeze' CVS and tag it as 1.3.7b1, build
> > some tarballs, announce it to the tester lists, and if nothing
> > crops up in 72 hours, retag it as 1.3.7 and proceed with a normal
> > rollout. This way we won't lose 1.3.7 if some critical problem
> > shows up; we just fix it, reset to 1.3.7b2, and try again. It
> > also puts the testers ahead of the release curve, rather than
> > behind it. Any comments?
> >
> > If anyone has any favourite fixes or features they want to get
> > in for 1.3.7, I recommend getting them in soon. Please review
> > any patches noted in the STATUS file and vote, or add any you
> > notice are missing.
> > --
> > #ken P-)}
> >
> > Ken Coar <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
> > Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
> > "Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>
> >
>
Re: Releasing 1.3.7
Posted by Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>.
I think a release is a good idea...
I just question why we're inventing another new numbering scheme...
why not do 1.4b1 and then release 1.4.0 in a month. I'm serious. EAPI
is almost a good enough reason on its own... plus the other features we've
snuck in...
after all they're all just numbers ;)
Dean
On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> (No-one has demurred, so I'm assuming I'll be RM for 1.3.7.)
>
> I think we should start preparing to roll out 1.3.7. I'd like
> to get it out the door by the end of June, 1999. We have a couple
> of significant fixes to put out there, and this is an essential
> step before we can populate the 2.0 module.
>
> I'd like to suggest a modification to the historical release process.
> Namely, I'd like to 'freeze' CVS and tag it as 1.3.7b1, build
> some tarballs, announce it to the tester lists, and if nothing
> crops up in 72 hours, retag it as 1.3.7 and proceed with a normal
> rollout. This way we won't lose 1.3.7 if some critical problem
> shows up; we just fix it, reset to 1.3.7b2, and try again. It
> also puts the testers ahead of the release curve, rather than
> behind it. Any comments?
>
> If anyone has any favourite fixes or features they want to get
> in for 1.3.7, I recommend getting them in soon. Please review
> any patches noted in the STATUS file and vote, or add any you
> notice are missing.
> --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
> Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
> "Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>
>