You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2004/02/18 15:28:46 UTC
Time for 1.3.30??
I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 "soonish".
Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Posted by Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com>.
On Feb 18, 2004, at 6:57 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> I have hughe problems with the new license.
Sorry to hear that; a large number of people both inside and outside
of the foundation worked very hard on the new license. Some of us
are convinced that is a substantial improvement.
> What exactly is the point of replacing the BSD-style old license that
> entirely works off the grounds of copyright law by this new beast that
> requires a bazillion of lawyers to parse and almost certainly goes into
> contract law?
You will find the venue where that work was done here:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/SummarizeList?listId=178
That mailing list is the right place to raise your concerns and, I
hope, get
them resolved.
Since this is a decision that we have labored on across the entire
foundation it's just not effective to try and discuss it in this
mailing list.
- ben
Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Posted by Henning Brauer <he...@openbsd.org>.
* Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> [2004-02-18 15:45]:
> I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 "soonish".
> Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
> also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
I have hughe problems with the new license.
What exactly is the point of replacing the BSD-style old license that
entirely works off the grounds of copyright law by this new beast that
requires a bazillion of lawyers to parse and almost certainly goes into
contract law?
i will not import any code under the new apache license into openbsd.
if that means we have to fork 1.3.29, then so it be, even though that is
not the option i prefer.
very sad.
--
Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
hb@bsws.de - henning@openbsd.org
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)
Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Sander Striker wrote:
> In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49
> aswell?
+1, but let's make sure to get the mod_usertrack fix finally committed.
Jim already committed it to 1.3.x as far as I know, and there's no reason
not to commit it to 2.0.x and 2.1.x except I just kept forgetting to do
so.
--Cliff
Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
We have a showstopper, don't we?
On Feb 18, 2004, at 12:34 PM, Sander Striker wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 "soonish".
>> Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
>> also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
>
> In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49
> aswell?
>
> Sander
>
>
--
=======================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 "soonish".
> Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
> also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49
aswell?
Sander
Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Posted by gr...@apache.org.
Ben Laurie wrote:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 "soonish".
>> one question: who would support putting the 1.3 versions of
>> mod_backtrace and mod_whatkilledus in experimental?
> +1.
+1
Greg
Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
Ben Laurie wrote:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 "soonish".
>>> Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
>>> also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
>>
>>
>>
>> one question: who would support putting the 1.3 versions of
>> mod_backtrace and mod_whatkilledus in experimental? I saw statements
>> from 2 or 3 folks that seemed interested and I'd be happy to address
>> the outstanding comments and suggestions (fix the directive names,
>> escape the request info written by whatkilledus, allow mod_backtrace
>> to be built on FreeBSD since there is a libexecinfo available there
>> with the required function). No integration with the build planned
>> unless somebody else wants to deal with the AP_ENABLE_EXCEPTION_HOOK
>> flag ;)
>
>
> +1.
>
+1
Bill
Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 "soonish".
>> Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
>> also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
>
>
> one question: who would support putting the 1.3 versions of
> mod_backtrace and mod_whatkilledus in experimental? I saw statements
> from 2 or 3 folks that seemed interested and I'd be happy to address the
> outstanding comments and suggestions (fix the directive names, escape
> the request info written by whatkilledus, allow mod_backtrace to be
> built on FreeBSD since there is a libexecinfo available there with the
> required function). No integration with the build planned unless
> somebody else wants to deal with the AP_ENABLE_EXCEPTION_HOOK flag ;)
+1.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Feb 18, 2004, at 1:19 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 "soonish".
>> Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
>> also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
>
> one question: who would support putting the 1.3 versions of
> mod_backtrace and mod_whatkilledus in experimental? I saw statements
> from 2 or 3 folks that seemed interested and I'd be happy to address
> the outstanding comments and suggestions (fix the directive names,
> escape the request info written by whatkilledus, allow mod_backtrace
> to be built on FreeBSD since there is a libexecinfo available there
> with the required function). No integration with the build planned
> unless somebody else wants to deal with the AP_ENABLE_EXCEPTION_HOOK
> flag ;)
>
>
+1 on adding to experimental!
--
=======================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 "soonish".
> Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
> also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
one question: who would support putting the 1.3 versions of mod_backtrace and
mod_whatkilledus in experimental? I saw statements from 2 or 3 folks that
seemed interested and I'd be happy to address the outstanding comments and
suggestions (fix the directive names, escape the request info written by
whatkilledus, allow mod_backtrace to be built on FreeBSD since there is a
libexecinfo available there with the required function). No integration with
the build planned unless somebody else wants to deal with the
AP_ENABLE_EXCEPTION_HOOK flag ;)
Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 "soonish".
> Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but
> also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0.
+1
Bill