You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> on 2001/06/02 00:53:47 UTC
2.0.17 not in dist/httpd/
Why hasn't the 2.0.17 tarball been moved to the public area as an alpha? For
that matter, where did 2.0.18 go?
I think the alphas should go to the public site. Sure, they aren't betas,
but they are certainly a lot newer than the 2.0.16 on the site right now.
Thoughts?
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: 2.0.17 not in dist/httpd/
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 05:01:26PM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 04:51:46PM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > > The problems that kept 2.0.18 from being released are still in 2.0.19-dev.
> > > Until those are fixed, I don't believe that we are back at beta stage.
> >
> > What are these problems, again? Are we keeping track of our outstanding
> > bugs in STATUS? -- justin
>
> The major problem is the bug that can keep the server from restarting
> correctly. This is in the STATUS file.
>
> Add to that the bug that was reported today with sub requests and buckets,
> and you have a release that is not of the same quality as 2.0.16.
Who says the quality has to keep going up?
2.0.16 is a beta.
2.0.19 would be an alpha.
For the people that may want to try some of the latest and greatest, and can
deal with alpha quality, it will be very helpful for them. People that want
a bit more stability can just stick with the 2.0.16 beta.
I'm mindful of Roy's point in terms of verifying the releases and source
control and whatnot, but I also see no reason to avoid releasing an alpha.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: 2.0.17 not in dist/httpd/
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 04:51:46PM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > The problems that kept 2.0.18 from being released are still in 2.0.19-dev.
> > Until those are fixed, I don't believe that we are back at beta stage.
>
> What are these problems, again? Are we keeping track of our outstanding
> bugs in STATUS? -- justin
The major problem is the bug that can keep the server from restarting
correctly. This is in the STATUS file.
Add to that the bug that was reported today with sub requests and buckets,
and you have a release that is not of the same quality as 2.0.16.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: 2.0.17 not in dist/httpd/
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@ebuilt.com>.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 04:51:46PM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> The problems that kept 2.0.18 from being released are still in 2.0.19-dev.
> Until those are fixed, I don't believe that we are back at beta stage.
What are these problems, again? Are we keeping track of our outstanding
bugs in STATUS? -- justin
Re: 2.0.17 not in dist/httpd/
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 03:53:47PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> > Why hasn't the 2.0.17 tarball been moved to the public area as an alpha? For
> > that matter, where did 2.0.18 go?
> >
> > I think the alphas should go to the public site. Sure, they aren't betas,
> > but they are certainly a lot newer than the 2.0.16 on the site right now.
>
> I think they were moved out because the signature wasn't verifiable
> until Bill returned. I would prefer to leave them out since neither
> one was as good as 16. If the rwlock stuff is fixed, now would be a
> good time for 2.0.19, though I would personally prefer that folks
> verify the rest of the stuff on www.apache.org first.
The problems that kept 2.0.18 from being released are still in 2.0.19-dev.
Until those are fixed, I don't believe that we are back at beta stage.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: 2.0.17 not in dist/httpd/
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@ebuilt.com>.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 03:53:47PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> Why hasn't the 2.0.17 tarball been moved to the public area as an alpha? For
> that matter, where did 2.0.18 go?
>
> I think the alphas should go to the public site. Sure, they aren't betas,
> but they are certainly a lot newer than the 2.0.16 on the site right now.
I think they were moved out because the signature wasn't verifiable
until Bill returned. I would prefer to leave them out since neither
one was as good as 16. If the rwlock stuff is fixed, now would be a
good time for 2.0.19, though I would personally prefer that folks
verify the rest of the stuff on www.apache.org first.
....Roy