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 2012/10/01 14:13:23 UTC
Re: 2.0.65
I can't recall either, but doing so in conjunction with
the 2.0.65 release likely makes sense.
On Sep 30, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
> On 9/30/2012 10:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> There was an email on users@httpd that reminded me that 2.0.65 has
>> been long left in a holding pattern.
>>
>> Anyone opposed to me pushing for a 2.0.65 release by the
>> end of this week?
>
> No opposition, but this does remind me about the when-will-2.0-be-EOL
> conversation. I think consensus was 1 year after the first 2.4 release
> but I don't think I've seen such an announcement (I could have just
> missed it, too).
>
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
>
Re: 2.0.65
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Oct 2, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> Any others with time to look thru 2.0.65's STATUS file.
>> There are a handful of "showstoppers" that I'm thinking
>> about "deferring" and pushing ahead with the 2.0.65 release.
>
> I'll try to find a little time.
>
> My 2 cents (which I won't throw at any group of 3 that wants to put
> out a 2.0.nnn): I don't think we should "defer" anything.
Yeah, I hear ya, and I tend to agree. I'm just less than
hopeful that we'll get enough people working on the remaining
stopper to resolve them...
Re: 2.0.65
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> Any others with time to look thru 2.0.65's STATUS file.
>> There are a handful of "showstoppers" that I'm thinking
>> about "deferring" and pushing ahead with the 2.0.65 release.
>
> I'll try to find a little time.
>
> My 2 cents (which I won't throw at any group of 3 that wants to put
> out a 2.0.nnn): I don't think we should "defer" anything. Given the
> lack of time+interest, IMO the only 2.0.x after 2.0.65 should be to
> resolve unintended regressions introduced with 2.0.65, and bugs left
> unfixed in 2.0.65 can remain. Then we wash our hands of it.
+1 and will try to look as well this week.
Re: 2.0.65
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Any others with time to look thru 2.0.65's STATUS file.
> There are a handful of "showstoppers" that I'm thinking
> about "deferring" and pushing ahead with the 2.0.65 release.
I'll try to find a little time.
My 2 cents (which I won't throw at any group of 3 that wants to put
out a 2.0.nnn): I don't think we should "defer" anything. Given the
lack of time+interest, IMO the only 2.0.x after 2.0.65 should be to
resolve unintended regressions introduced with 2.0.65, and bugs left
unfixed in 2.0.65 can remain. Then we wash our hands of it.
>
> On Oct 1, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't recall either, but doing so in conjunction with
>> the 2.0.65 release likely makes sense.
>>
>> On Sep 30, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/30/2012 10:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> There was an email on users@httpd that reminded me that 2.0.65 has
>>>> been long left in a holding pattern.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone opposed to me pushing for a 2.0.65 release by the
>>>> end of this week?
>>>
>>> No opposition, but this does remind me about the when-will-2.0-be-EOL
>>> conversation. I think consensus was 1 year after the first 2.4 release
>>> but I don't think I've seen such an announcement (I could have just
>>> missed it, too).
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Ruggeri
>>>
>>
>
--
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/
Re: 2.0.65
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Any others with time to look thru 2.0.65's STATUS file.
There are a handful of "showstoppers" that I'm thinking
about "deferring" and pushing ahead with the 2.0.65 release.
On Oct 1, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> I can't recall either, but doing so in conjunction with
> the 2.0.65 release likely makes sense.
>
> On Sep 30, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/30/2012 10:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> There was an email on users@httpd that reminded me that 2.0.65 has
>>> been long left in a holding pattern.
>>>
>>> Anyone opposed to me pushing for a 2.0.65 release by the
>>> end of this week?
>>
>> No opposition, but this does remind me about the when-will-2.0-be-EOL
>> conversation. I think consensus was 1 year after the first 2.4 release
>> but I don't think I've seen such an announcement (I could have just
>> missed it, too).
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Ruggeri
>>
>