You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to axkit-dev@xml.apache.org by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org> on 2003/02/01 18:07:04 UTC
1.6.1 - How are we doing?
Jorg made some fairly major patches recently. Given that, how are we
doing for a 1.6.1 release? Should we put out a new beta, or should we
just roll? Are there still broken cache issues that pepl reported or
did we fix that?
Re: 1.6.1 - How are we doing?
Posted by Barrie Slaymaker <ba...@slaysys.com>.
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 02:41:42PM +0100, J?rg Walter wrote:
> On Sunday, 02. February 2003 14:24, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
> > OK, so assuming it works for you now, anyone else? Are we good to go
> > gold or do we roll another beta? I think roll another beta personally,
> > and wait 1 more week. But I also think we should branch now so we can
> > work on 1.7 too.
>
> I support both.
+1 for 1 more week of beta, branch 1.7 if anyone needs to commit *now*,
otherwise, no need to branch for the fun of it.
- Barrie
Re: 1.6.1 - How are we doing?
Posted by Jörg Walter <eh...@ich.bin.kein.hoschi.de>.
On Sunday, 02. February 2003 14:24, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> OK, so assuming it works for you now, anyone else? Are we good to go
> gold or do we roll another beta? I think roll another beta personally,
> and wait 1 more week. But I also think we should branch now so we can
> work on 1.7 too.
I support both.
--
CU
Joerg
PGP Public Key at http://ich.bin.kein.hoschi.de/~trouble/public_key.asc
PGP Key fingerprint = D34F 57C4 99D8 8F16 E16E 7779 CDDC 41A4 4C48 6F94
Re: 1.6.1 - How are we doing?
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
On Saturday, Feb 1, 2003, at 19:43 Europe/London, Michael Kroell wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
>>> not fixed for me. no one with the same problem?
>>
>> Try now. I'm amazed nobody else had the same problem.
>
> me too, and yes - i am feeling quite stupid about it...
OK, so assuming it works for you now, anyone else? Are we good to go
gold or do we roll another beta? I think roll another beta personally,
and wait 1 more week. But I also think we should branch now so we can
work on 1.7 too.
Re: 1.6.1 - How are we doing?
Posted by Michael Kroell <mi...@uibk.ac.at>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > not fixed for me. no one with the same problem?
>
> Try now. I'm amazed nobody else had the same problem.
me too, and yes - i am feeling quite stupid about it...
michael
- --
IT Services
University of Innsbruck
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBPjwjSXjN0CNeKmaIEQKvSACfYCyRMx0EOPrLEGrTikPnU4HIle8AoOyo
8Ul0oI3Bq8Ms8MyXhDO46W1n
=L3qe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: 1.6.1 - How are we doing?
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
On Saturday, Feb 1, 2003, at 17:41 Europe/London, Michael Kroell wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
>> just roll? Are there still broken cache issues that pepl reported or
>> did we fix that?
>
> not fixed for me. no one with the same problem?
Try now. I'm amazed nobody else had the same problem.
Re: 1.6.1 - How are we doing?
Posted by Michael Kroell <mi...@uibk.ac.at>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> just roll? Are there still broken cache issues that pepl reported or
> did we fix that?
not fixed for me. no one with the same problem?
michael
- --
IT Services
University of Innsbruck
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBPjwGz3jN0CNeKmaIEQKfCQCfdSiLNey0gVvRvPfmgkOih3HjvC0AnjMO
6GVGzT6aICz1JwJRClV5rN2H
=9b4y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----