You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Ryan Bloom <rb...@ntrnet.net> on 2000/03/05 04:33:39 UTC
Apache 2.0 Alpha.
Tomorrow is the day that I was supposed to put together the 2.0 alpha. My
impression from the response when I brought this up, is that the group is
basically against an alpha of 2.0 right now. I personally think this is a
mistake, but if that is the wishes of the group, then I won't announce an
alpha tomorrow. Please correct me if I mis-read the groups opinion.
Also, please consider your reasons for not wanting an alpha. An alpha
release is meant to bring people to the project, so bugs can be found and
dealt with.
I would like to release the alpha ASAP, if not tomorrow, then sometime
during Apache Con.
Ryan
Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Apache 2.0 Alpha.
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
+1. torch 'em, please!
On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 rbb@apache.org wrote:
>
> For the most part, we have one configuration program now. We still have
> src/Configure, but ./configure is gone now. I can delete src/Configure
> and all of it's remnants at any time.
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, David Reid wrote:
>
> > I think Manoj's point about deciding which configuration was a valid one.
> > Do we ditch the existing and use the new buildconf, (in which case does it
> > need moving up a directory??) or keep both? It'd be neater to just have one
> > and would force people to use it which might be more useful.
> >
> > david
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ryan Bloom" <rb...@ntrnet.net>
> > To: <ne...@apache.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 3:33 AM
> > Subject: Apache 2.0 Alpha.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Tomorrow is the day that I was supposed to put together the 2.0 alpha. My
> > > impression from the response when I brought this up, is that the group is
> > > basically against an alpha of 2.0 right now. I personally think this is a
> > > mistake, but if that is the wishes of the group, then I won't announce an
> > > alpha tomorrow. Please correct me if I mis-read the groups opinion.
> > >
> > > Also, please consider your reasons for not wanting an alpha. An alpha
> > > release is meant to bring people to the project, so bugs can be found and
> > > dealt with.
> > >
> > > I would like to release the alpha ASAP, if not tomorrow, then sometime
> > > during Apache Con.
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > >
> > > Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
> > > Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
> > >
> > >
> > ____________________________________________________________________________
> > ___
> > > Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
> > > 406 29th St.
> > > San Francisco, CA 94131
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
> Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Apache 2.0 Alpha.
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
For the most part, we have one configuration program now. We still have
src/Configure, but ./configure is gone now. I can delete src/Configure
and all of it's remnants at any time.
Ryan
On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, David Reid wrote:
> I think Manoj's point about deciding which configuration was a valid one.
> Do we ditch the existing and use the new buildconf, (in which case does it
> need moving up a directory??) or keep both? It'd be neater to just have one
> and would force people to use it which might be more useful.
>
> david
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan Bloom" <rb...@ntrnet.net>
> To: <ne...@apache.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 3:33 AM
> Subject: Apache 2.0 Alpha.
>
>
> >
> > Tomorrow is the day that I was supposed to put together the 2.0 alpha. My
> > impression from the response when I brought this up, is that the group is
> > basically against an alpha of 2.0 right now. I personally think this is a
> > mistake, but if that is the wishes of the group, then I won't announce an
> > alpha tomorrow. Please correct me if I mis-read the groups opinion.
> >
> > Also, please consider your reasons for not wanting an alpha. An alpha
> > release is meant to bring people to the project, so bugs can be found and
> > dealt with.
> >
> > I would like to release the alpha ASAP, if not tomorrow, then sometime
> > during Apache Con.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> >
> > Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
> > Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> ___
> > Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
> > 406 29th St.
> > San Francisco, CA 94131
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
>
>
Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Apache 2.0 Alpha.
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
I think Manoj's point about deciding which configuration was a valid one.
Do we ditch the existing and use the new buildconf, (in which case does it
need moving up a directory??) or keep both? It'd be neater to just have one
and would force people to use it which might be more useful.
david
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Bloom" <rb...@ntrnet.net>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 3:33 AM
Subject: Apache 2.0 Alpha.
>
> Tomorrow is the day that I was supposed to put together the 2.0 alpha. My
> impression from the response when I brought this up, is that the group is
> basically against an alpha of 2.0 right now. I personally think this is a
> mistake, but if that is the wishes of the group, then I won't announce an
> alpha tomorrow. Please correct me if I mis-read the groups opinion.
>
> Also, please consider your reasons for not wanting an alpha. An alpha
> release is meant to bring people to the project, so bugs can be found and
> dealt with.
>
> I would like to release the alpha ASAP, if not tomorrow, then sometime
> during Apache Con.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
> Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
___
> Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
>
RE: Apache 2.0 Alpha.
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>.
I answered with the single concern of fixing the chunked size bug - it seems
fixed.
Manoj's comment;
I do think the effort is valuable, but we should only hold up the
alpha for completely necessary things (of which I think a working bug
tracking system is one).
I have to agree with 100% - until a fresh - clean - brand new 2.0-alpha
category exists (and works :~), we really should hold off on the trumpets -
but I'll leave it to others to tell us where this stands.
Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rbb@shell.ntrnet.net [mailto:rbb@shell.ntrnet.net]On Behalf Of
> Ryan Bloom
> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 9:34 PM
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: Apache 2.0 Alpha.
>
>
>
> Tomorrow is the day that I was supposed to put together the
> 2.0 alpha. My
> impression from the response when I brought this up, is that
> the group is
> basically against an alpha of 2.0 right now. I personally
> think this is a
> mistake, but if that is the wishes of the group, then I won't
> announce an
> alpha tomorrow. Please correct me if I mis-read the groups opinion.
>
> Also, please consider your reasons for not wanting an alpha. An alpha
> release is meant to bring people to the project, so bugs can
> be found and
> dealt with.
>
> I would like to release the alpha ASAP, if not tomorrow, then sometime
> during Apache Con.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
> Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________________
> Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>
Re: Apache 2.0 Alpha.
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
+1 on releasing sooner rather than later.
-g
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> Tomorrow is the day that I was supposed to put together the 2.0 alpha. My
> impression from the response when I brought this up, is that the group is
> basically against an alpha of 2.0 right now. I personally think this is a
> mistake, but if that is the wishes of the group, then I won't announce an
> alpha tomorrow. Please correct me if I mis-read the groups opinion.
>
> Also, please consider your reasons for not wanting an alpha. An alpha
> release is meant to bring people to the project, so bugs can be found and
> dealt with.
>
> I would like to release the alpha ASAP, if not tomorrow, then sometime
> during Apache Con.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
> Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/