You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to xmlrpc-dev@ws.apache.org by "Daniel Rall (JIRA)" <xm...@ws.apache.org> on 2005/04/28 10:26:30 UTC
[jira] Commented: (XMLRPC-57) Unreleased version XMLRPC_1_2_B2
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XMLRPC-57?page=comments#action_63954 ]
Daniel Rall commented on XMLRPC-57:
-----------------------------------
There is nothing "wrong" with the beta 2 tag (past known and undiscovered bugs, of course). It's simply waiting on someone to act as release manager.
It may be better to concentrate on 2.0, however...
> Unreleased version XMLRPC_1_2_B2
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: XMLRPC-57
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XMLRPC-57
> Project: XML-RPC
> Type: Bug
> Components: Website
> Versions: 1.2
> Reporter: Martín Ferrari
>
> While I was trying to make a sane build of XML-RPC 1.2 b1 I discovered some issues, and at least one of them is fixed in CVS and closed in bugzilla. In CVS there is a tag named XMLRPC_1_2_B2 from May/2004 but that version was never released, in the website 1.2b1 is the latest tarball.
> Is there anything wrong with b2? If it is not, it should be published!
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
Re: [jira] Commented: (XMLRPC-57) Unreleased version XMLRPC_1_2_B2
Posted by Martín Ferrari <ma...@gmail.com>.
I still fail to see what is the big fuss about doing a cvs export +
tar zcf... Now there is a 2.0beta release, but when I reported it, the
only tarball was totally broken.
On 4/28/05, Daniel Rall (JIRA) <xm...@ws.apache.org> wrote:
> [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XMLRPC-57?page=comments#action_63954 ]
>
> Daniel Rall commented on XMLRPC-57:
> -----------------------------------
>
> There is nothing "wrong" with the beta 2 tag (past known and undiscovered bugs, of course). It's simply waiting on someone to act as release manager.
>
> It may be better to concentrate on 2.0, however...
--
Martín Ferrari