You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com> on 2005/03/17 18:15:07 UTC
APR-Iconv 1.0.2 Released
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Apache APR-Iconv 1.0.2 released
=====================================
The Apache Software Foundation and the Apache Portable Runtime Project
are proud to announce the General Availability of version 1.0.2 of the
Apache Portable Runtime Iconv Library, APR-Iconv.
APR-Iconv is available for download from:
~ http://apr.apache.org/download.cgi
This is primarily a build and bug fix release.
A detailed list of changes is at:
~ http://www.apache.org/dist/apr/CHANGES-API
MD5 Sums:
apr-iconv-1.0.2.tar.gz = a74e1f30d823f90fae08c9a774558d77
apr-iconv-1.0.2.tar.bz2 = ffcfeace82581fc5fbb5709149ba887a
apr-iconv-1.0.2.tar.Z = 795fe1a987ccace2a157d4dd94aeee6c
apr-iconv-1.0.2.zip = ef90fa048c0a30dbb612d286ed5c677d
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFCObsa94h19kJyHwARAhvOAJ9MfJi13wGrahmo9kbrPJxsT/HIdwCfV63O
WpZ9sukKTSk4L+8yBJs6dZw=
=HCgN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: APR-Iconv 1.0.2 Released
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > he rolled it, I get 1 vote. Not 3. This is an absolute violation
> > of our charter and operating guidelines.
> >
> > With that, the counter is at four hours, and I will pull
> > down this apr-iconv tarball unless the vote concludes
> > in favor of this tarball.
>
> I still think this is an over-reaction as no one operated in bad faith
> here. I maintain that any effort would be better placed at fixing the
> problems and rolling a new apr-iconv 1.1.0 that fixes whatever problem you
> seem to think is present today. That could likely be done in less time
> with less animosity and less emails. -- justin
For what it's worth, I agree with Justin here. I think I recall seeing a
-1, but I was under the impression that the -1 was just against apr-util
1.1.1 for the issue that was subsequently fixed in apr-util 1.1.2, hence
the reason why apr-util 1.1.1 was pulled. Anyway why don't we just move
on, since this is not a regression but a pre-existing bug, and simply
agree to take a bit more time waiting for feedback on future releases.
--Cliff
Re: APR-Iconv 1.0.2 Released
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 02:29 PM 3/17/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:14 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>>What was insufficiently explicit about
>>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>>-1 for apr-util / apr-iconv.
>>
>>which Paul replied to?
>
>I still don't see any message from you on any list that said that. Did you happen to vote in private?
Ahhh... yes. He responded on-list, so it was recorded indirectly.
But until I just replied to your note now, I wasn't on record.
So we jump from +2, to +1, to...
>>This is an absolute violation of our charter and operating guidelines.
>>
>>With that, the counter is at four hours, and I will pull
>>down this apr-iconv tarball unless the vote concludes
>>in favor of this tarball.
>
>I still think this is an over-reaction as no one operated in bad faith here.
Irrelevant.
> I maintain that any effort would be better placed at fixing the problems and rolling a new apr-iconv 1.1.0 that fixes whatever problem you seem to think is present today.
Glad it's all in my mind, and not in observations on the SVN list
and here. I didn't invent the problem. We (a community) created
this conflict. It's our responsibility to mitigate the problem.
Releasing another borked tarball with the same issues only aggravates
the problem, for svn, httpd and other users.
So yours and Paul's position is shove it out the door.
I disrespectfully disagree.
>That could likely be done in less time with less animosity and
>less emails.
Scroll back, you are the individual who has personalized this.
Position stands, this tarball is not an ASF approved release by
our release guidelines. Until a net of two more +1's chime in,
it stays that way.
Re: APR-Iconv 1.0.2 Released
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:14 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> What was insufficiently explicit about
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> -1 for apr-util / apr-iconv.
>
> which Paul replied to?
I still don't see any message from you on any list that said that. Did you
happen to vote in private?
> Oh, I'm counting your +1, my -1. Presuming the RM voted +1 since
> he rolled it, I get 1 vote. Not 3. This is an absolute violation
> of our charter and operating guidelines.
>
> With that, the counter is at four hours, and I will pull
> down this apr-iconv tarball unless the vote concludes
> in favor of this tarball.
I still think this is an over-reaction as no one operated in bad faith
here. I maintain that any effort would be better placed at fixing the
problems and rolling a new apr-iconv 1.1.0 that fixes whatever problem you
seem to think is present today. That could likely be done in less time
with less animosity and less emails. -- justin
Re: APR-Iconv 1.0.2 Released
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 01:54 PM 3/17/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Thursday, March 17, 2005 1:25 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>>I have done a search against pmc@ and apr@. Justin 'amended'
>>his +1 to include 1.0.2. Nobody else did so (some explicitly
>>did not vote on this item).
>>
>>I'm explicitly voting -1 against a 1.0.2 release. Curt's issue
>>is explicitly harmful to apr-iconv users. There is a (rather large)
>>breakage that seems has been deliberately ignored by an overeager RM.
>
>Paul explicitly posted a tally yesterday afternoon and you didn't bring this up then. Nowhere can I find you saying -1 for apr-iconv, so your -1 is news to me and probably to Paul as well.
What was insufficiently explicit about
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> -1 for apr-util / apr-iconv.
which Paul replied to?
I then replied +1 to apr. Only apr. This problem doesn't
impact either apr nor apr-util, only apr-iconv.
Paul's Tally subject was 1.1.1. It was not 1.0.2 It did not
contain the text iconv. Most individuals who voted did NOT vote
on apr-iconv. Some voted only on apr. Some voted on both
apr, apr-util, and did not vote on apr-iconv.
>Additionally, I maintain that this isn't a regression. So, my +1 still stands.
Oh, I'm counting your +1, my -1. Presuming the RM voted +1 since
he rolled it, I get 1 vote. Not 3. This is an absolute violation
of our charter and operating guidelines.
With that, the counter is at four hours, and I will pull
down this apr-iconv tarball unless the vote concludes
in favor of this tarball.
Re: APR-Iconv 1.0.2 Released
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Thursday, March 17, 2005 1:25 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> I have done a search against pmc@ and apr@. Justin 'amended'
> his +1 to include 1.0.2. Nobody else did so (some explicitly
> did not vote on this item).
>
> I'm explicitly voting -1 against a 1.0.2 release. Curt's issue
> is explicitly harmful to apr-iconv users. There is a (rather large)
> breakage that seems has been deliberately ignored by an overeager RM.
Paul explicitly posted a tally yesterday afternoon and you didn't bring
this up then. Nowhere can I find you saying -1 for apr-iconv, so your -1
is news to me and probably to Paul as well.
Additionally, I maintain that this isn't a regression. So, my +1 still
stands. Yes, others could have been more explicit as to what they were
voting for - but I feel Paul followed the process in good faith and should
be afforded a benefit of a doubt and not be accused of deliberately
ignoring breakage. Accusing him of malicious intent is unfair. -- justin
Re: APR-Iconv 1.0.2 Released
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
I didn't see a vote called for this release. I saw a vote
amended and an extra tarball thrown out there.
I have done a search against pmc@ and apr@. Justin 'amended'
his +1 to include 1.0.2. Nobody else did so (some explicitly
did not vote on this item).
I'm explicitly voting -1 against a 1.0.2 release. Curt's issue
is explicitly harmful to apr-iconv users. There is a (rather large)
breakage that seems has been deliberately ignored by an overeager RM.
My inclination is to pull it down from the downloads page in
six hours if this is not addressed.
Explanation/excuse for this announce?
Bill
At 11:15 AM 3/17/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Apache APR-Iconv 1.0.2 released
>=====================================
>
>The Apache Software Foundation and the Apache Portable Runtime Project
>are proud to announce the General Availability of version 1.0.2 of the
>Apache Portable Runtime Iconv Library, APR-Iconv.
>
>APR-Iconv is available for download from:
>
>~ http://apr.apache.org/download.cgi
>
>This is primarily a build and bug fix release.
>
>A detailed list of changes is at:
>
>~ http://www.apache.org/dist/apr/CHANGES-API
>
>MD5 Sums:
>apr-iconv-1.0.2.tar.gz = a74e1f30d823f90fae08c9a774558d77
>apr-iconv-1.0.2.tar.bz2 = ffcfeace82581fc5fbb5709149ba887a
>apr-iconv-1.0.2.tar.Z = 795fe1a987ccace2a157d4dd94aeee6c
>apr-iconv-1.0.2.zip = ef90fa048c0a30dbb612d286ed5c677d
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
>
>iD8DBQFCObsa94h19kJyHwARAhvOAJ9MfJi13wGrahmo9kbrPJxsT/HIdwCfV63O
>WpZ9sukKTSk4L+8yBJs6dZw=
>=HCgN
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[Announce] APR-Iconv 1.0.2 Retracted
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 11:15 AM 3/17/2005 the APR project inadvertantly announced
that APR-Iconv 1.0.2 was released.
This release of APR-Iconv 1.0.2 has since been retracted.
These files have been removed from the downloads page of
www.apache.org. APR-Iconv 1.0.1 remains the current, stable
release. We apologize for this confusion.
The APR project further advises that no application deploy the
apr-iconv 1.0.x library and code page modules except within its
own directory tree, due to a serious conflict with users of the
apr-iconv 0.9.x module. Any users who define APR_ICONV_PATH will
discover their apr-iconv loadable .so modules from the wrong
version will likely crash theirapplication.
It is the project's intent to fix this problem, likely with the
introduction of the APR_ICONV1_PATH environment variable to
disambiguate any apr-iconv modules from apr-iconv-1 modules.
The project team is also considering methods to internally
identify and reject modules built for the another flavor of
either apr-iconv or apr-iconv-1.
Due to downtime on the ASF servers, it's unlikely that this
release will occur before the week of March 21st. We thank
you for your patience, and look forward to providing a version
which coexists with existing apr-iconv 0.9 installations.