You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2005/09/08 23:07:45 UTC
Re: svn commit: r279612 - in /httpd/site/trunk: docs/index.html xdocs/index.xml
pquerna@apache.org wrote:
> Author: pquerna
> Date: Thu Sep 8 13:05:21 2005
> New Revision: 279612
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=279612&view=rev
> Log:
> s/alpha/beta/i for 2.1.7.
I'm confused... reviewing the entire month's archive for the word
'beta' I counted
+1 Jim, Paul, Brad, Jeff, Justin
-1 Myself, Mladen, Nick, Rainer
I saw Joe comment -very- frequently and solving the various problems,
but didn't see a vote from him on dev@httpd (sorry if I missed it).
Some of these votes (Rainer for example) was advisory/not binding, but
it doesn't look like a resounding voice of support. Almost every person
above sounded tickled by the idea of declaring 2.1.8 beta, now that all
the quirks are being solved. Nobody seemed to object to 2.1.7 alpha.
I'd committed some fixes in apr[-util] trunk/, which doesn't look that
useable as 1.2.2, so I'll get backporting to 1.2 branch.
Bill
Re: svn commit: r279612 - in /httpd/site/trunk: docs/index.html xdocs/index.xml
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Paul Querna wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> +1 Jim, Paul, Brad, Jeff, Justin
>> -1 Myself, Mladen, Nick, Rainer
>
> [Joe] did vote +1:
Ack, thanks (and as I said, sorry that I missed that)
> We are voting on 2.1.7-beta. We are voting to certify that as a
> release. By my count of binding votes, it passed by 1 vote.
Ack. Please note it will not build on Win32 in your Announce. Thanks.
Bill
Re: svn commit: r279612 - in /httpd/site/trunk: docs/index.html xdocs/index.xml
Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> pquerna@apache.org wrote:
>
>> Author: pquerna
>> Date: Thu Sep 8 13:05:21 2005
>> New Revision: 279612
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=279612&view=rev
>> Log:
>> s/alpha/beta/i for 2.1.7.
>
>
> I'm confused... reviewing the entire month's archive for the word
> 'beta' I counted
>
> +1 Jim, Paul, Brad, Jeff, Justin
> -1 Myself, Mladen, Nick, Rainer
>
> I saw Joe comment -very- frequently and solving the various problems,
> but didn't see a vote from him on dev@httpd (sorry if I missed it).
>
He did vote +1:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200508.mbox/%3c20050822104412.GA20488@redhat.com%3e
> Some of these votes (Rainer for example) was advisory/not binding, but
> it doesn't look like a resounding voice of support. Almost every person
> above sounded tickled by the idea of declaring 2.1.8 beta, now that all
> the quirks are being solved. Nobody seemed to object to 2.1.7 alpha.
No one voted on Alpha. That would be a different vote.
Doing a 2.1.8 is a different topic.
Yes, there are many fixes already present in trunk, and yes, I agree
that 2.1.8 would be nice, but we aren't voting on 2.1.8.
We are voting on 2.1.7-beta. We are voting to certify that as a
release. By my count of binding votes, it passed by 1 vote.
You are welcome to RM a 2.1.8 release, but right now I am only concerned
with finishing the 2.1.7 cycle. I plan on sending out the announcement
email later today, after making sure the website is all ready.
-Paul