Re: Need for a Release Candidate status

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Brad Nicholes wrote:
> 
>   Good point and this might be one reason why we need a RC status
> before going GA.  I know that on at least 2 platforms (windows,
> netware), there would be a lot more testing and feedback from the
> general user community if binaries were available.  Personally, I don't
> normally roll and post binaries until the source code has reached some
> status such as BETA.  In this case it appears that we are trying to go
> directly from testing to GA with no real interim status designation. 
> Should I change my practice and roll binaries anytime a tarball is
> produced?  Where should I post the binaries, /~bnicholes, /dev/dist,
> /dist/httpd/binaries/netware???  

I intend to roll as soon as 1.1.1 is apr-iconv is released (I count
Colm and Graham and I now, +1).  We can just drop them in the usual
/dist/httpd/binaries/plat/  -  as long as they are marked 2.1.10-beta
(or 2.1.10-BETA if we prefer to shout it - not a bad idea on win32
since from users@httpd it's clear folks don't read the download page ;-)

Bill

Re: Need for a Release Candidate status

["Wayne S. Frazee" <wf...@wynweb.net>]

William A. Rowe, Jr. writes: 

> Brad Nicholes wrote:
>> 
>>   Good point and this might be one reason why we need a RC status
>> before going GA.  I know that on at least 2 platforms (windows,
>> netware), there would be a lot more testing and feedback from the
>> general user community if binaries were available.  Personally, I don't
>> normally roll and post binaries until the source code has reached some
>> status such as BETA.  In this case it appears that we are trying to go
>> directly from testing to GA with no real interim status designation. 
>> Should I change my practice and roll binaries anytime a tarball is
>> produced?  Where should I post the binaries, /~bnicholes, /dev/dist,
>> /dist/httpd/binaries/netware???
> 
> I intend to roll as soon as 1.1.1 is apr-iconv is released (I count
> Colm and Graham and I now, +1).  We can just drop them in the usual
> /dist/httpd/binaries/plat/  -  as long as they are marked 2.1.10-beta
> (or 2.1.10-BETA if we prefer to shout it - not a bad idea on win32
> since from users@httpd it's clear folks don't read the download page ;-) 
> 
> Bill

If I may make a suggestion, I would certainly vote for a capitalized RC 
designator whether it be "BETA" or some such other.  Further, I would 
propose that a line emphasized in some way be added to the portion of the 
httpd.apache.org homepage making very very clear that it is a beta release, 
etc etc.  Right now the listing looks like: 

"The Apache HTTP Server Project is proud to announce the release of version 
2.1.9-beta of the Apache HTTP Server ("Apache"). 

This version of Apache is a Beta release of the unstable development branch. 
New features include Smart Filtering, Improved Caching, AJP Proxy, Proxy 
Load Balancing, Graceful Shutdown support, Large File Support, the Event 
MPM, and refactored Authentication/Authorization." 

A little bit of beta or emphasis would go a long way.  People tend not to 
read the text and rather to click download because numerically 2.1.9 > 
2.0.55 so people grab it thinking that like most open source projects, its 
just designated beta because the project isnt fully released and they are 
getting the same stability that the 2.0.x line offers at present. 

Just a humble .02 

 -----------------
Wayne S. Frazee
"Any sufficiently developed bug is indistinguishable from a feature."