You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to test-dev@httpd.apache.org by Jacek Prucia <ja...@acn.waw.pl> on 2003/09/10 01:18:00 UTC
FLOOD_1_1_RC1 tagged.
I have just tagged the tree with FLOOD_1_1_RC1. Release tarballs (made with
apr and apr-util HEAD) are available for testing here:
http://cvs.apache.org/~jacekp/release/
RC1 builds cleanly on my Gentoo box (with openssl and without) and all example
files report no errors at all. Will do few more builds (Solaris, FreeBSD)
tomorrow before casting a vote. Anyway looks like a strong candidate for GA.
I would like to ask other RM's to take a closer look at RC1 tarballs. I might
goofed something up and have absolutelly no idea about it :)
regards,
Jacek Prucia
Re: FLOOD_1_1_RC1 tagged.
Posted by Jacek Prucia <ja...@acn.waw.pl>.
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:15:46 -0700
Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> --On Wednesday, September 10, 2003 1:18 AM +0200 Jacek Prucia
> <ja...@acn.waw.pl> wrote:
>
> > I would like to ask other RM's to take a closer look at RC1 tarballs. I
> > might goofed something up and have absolutelly no idea about it :)
>
> Looks fine here on Solaris. +1 with the build/rules.mk.in change I just
> committed to remove the .deps failures.
Cool :)
> Once you feel confident, you should be able to tweak the repository and lay
> down the final tag in CVS, then create the final 1.1 tarball. You now have
> two +1s from me and Aaron for this RC. I'll assume you'd cast a +1 too at
> some point!
Here's my +1 (for RC1 + build/rules.mk.in changes recently commited).
> So, that's the required 3 +1s for a public release. Woot!
Yes. Look's like we're on straight road to 1.1 right now.
> I should be able to find time next week to add you to the right groups and
> stuff so you can make the release public. You might have to poke me though
> as I've got a crazy week up ahead. (Or, poke Cliff as he's root@ next
> week.)
OK. Will do.
> Since this is the first 'real' release in a long time (if ever), I'd suggest
> doing the following things if you want:
>
> - Create an email to send to announce@httpd.apache.org
Absolutelly! Also a mail to announce@apache.org would also be desired, no?
> Feel free to post drafts here for feedback. Look at httpd-2.x's announce
> emails for a flavor of what'll be there.
I've already spotted announcement files at httpd-dist repo. The idea is great,
and I'll start cooking flood announcement soon. Please expect announcement
post for review later this day.
> You'd probably want to have a
> paragraph introducing what flood is.
Yes. I've seen such paragraphs in Jakarta announcements e-mails. Will do
something similar for flood.
> - Update the flood website to mention 1.1 is released.
Yes. I'll prepare new HTML and post a patch here.
regards,
Jacek Prucia
Re: FLOOD_1_1_RC1 tagged.
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Wednesday, September 10, 2003 1:18 AM +0200 Jacek Prucia
<ja...@acn.waw.pl> wrote:
> I would like to ask other RM's to take a closer look at RC1 tarballs. I might
> goofed something up and have absolutelly no idea about it :)
Looks fine here on Solaris. +1 with the build/rules.mk.in change I just
committed to remove the .deps failures.
Once you feel confident, you should be able to tweak the repository and lay
down the final tag in CVS, then create the final 1.1 tarball. You now have
two +1s from me and Aaron for this RC. I'll assume you'd cast a +1 too at
some point! So, that's the required 3 +1s for a public release. Woot!
I should be able to find time next week to add you to the right groups and
stuff so you can make the release public. You might have to poke me though as
I've got a crazy week up ahead. (Or, poke Cliff as he's root@ next week.)
Since this is the first 'real' release in a long time (if ever), I'd suggest
doing the following things if you want:
- Create an email to send to announce@httpd.apache.org
Feel free to post drafts here for feedback. Look at httpd-2.x's announce
emails for a flavor of what'll be there. You'd probably want to have a
paragraph introducing what flood is.
- Update the flood website to mention 1.1 is released.
Let me know if you have questions. Good luck! -- justin
Re: FLOOD_1_1_RC1 tagged.
Posted by Jacek Prucia <ja...@acn.waw.pl>.
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:50:44 -0700
Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 04:18 PM, Jacek Prucia wrote:
> > I would like to ask other RM's to take a closer look at RC1 tarballs.
> > I might
> > goofed something up and have absolutelly no idea about it :)
>
> The tarball builds and runs great on Darwin 6.6 (Mac OS X 10.2.6), good
> work!
>
> Here's my +1
Cool :)
> (I'm fine with distributing the apr and apr-util source until apr 1.0
> gets
> released, but after that we should just say which officially released
> version
> of APR we depend on.)
That was exactly the point. Some people just don't feel comfortable, when they
have to retrieve additional stuff for official release using CVS. This just
doesn't seem right. When apr/apr-util are released (soon from what I have
heard), we can create small INSTALL file and describe flood system
requirements there.
regards,
--
Jacek Prucia
Re: FLOOD_1_1_RC1 tagged.
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 04:18 PM, Jacek Prucia wrote:
> I would like to ask other RM's to take a closer look at RC1 tarballs.
> I might
> goofed something up and have absolutelly no idea about it :)
The tarball builds and runs great on Darwin 6.6 (Mac OS X 10.2.6), good
work!
Here's my +1
(I'm fine with distributing the apr and apr-util source until apr 1.0
gets
released, but after that we should just say which officially released
version
of APR we depend on.)
-aaron
Re: FLOOD_1_1_RC1 tagged.
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 04:18 PM, Jacek Prucia wrote:
>
> I have just tagged the tree with FLOOD_1_1_RC1. Release tarballs (made
> with
> apr and apr-util HEAD) are available for testing here:
>
> http://cvs.apache.org/~jacekp/release/
>
> RC1 builds cleanly on my Gentoo box (with openssl and without) and all
> example
> files report no errors at all. Will do few more builds (Solaris,
> FreeBSD)
> tomorrow before casting a vote. Anyway looks like a strong candidate
> for GA.
>
> I would like to ask other RM's to take a closer look at RC1 tarballs.
> I might
> goofed something up and have absolutelly no idea about it :)
Did you mean to include the full source to apr and apr-util in the flood
source tree?
-aaron