You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@trafficserver.apache.org by John Plevyak <jp...@apache.org> on 2010/05/13 19:45:35 UTC
2.1.0-unstable
Please take a look at
http://people.apache.org/~jplevyak/
which contains the NEW candidate 2.1.0 unstable release.
This is an unstable release, so it still contains a number
of issues, but no serious regressions.
Please consider it for release, I'll send out for a vote
if I don't get a negative response by the end of day.
john
Re: 2.1.0-unstable Call for VOTE
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
On 05/14/2010 01:31 AM, John Plevyak wrote:
>
>
> Tar ball updated with RAT, LICENSE, NOTICE changes.
> Other bits identical.
>
> Vote by Monday 8AM.
>
+1
Tested on RHEL5 32 bit.
RHEL5 x86_64 needs a LDFLAGS=-L/usr/lib64 during configure, but beside that works fine.
Regards
--
^TM
Re: 2.1.0-unstable Call for VOTE
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 05/13/2010 05:31 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
>
> Tar ball updated with RAT, LICENSE, NOTICE changes.
> Other bits identical.
>
Latest bits looks good to me, +1.
-- leif
Re: 2.1.0-unstable Call for VOTE
Posted by Bryan Call <bc...@yahoo-inc.com>.
+1
-Bryan
On May 13, 2010, at 4:31 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
>
>
> Tar ball updated with RAT, LICENSE, NOTICE changes.
> Other bits identical.
>
> Vote by Monday 8AM.
>
> Thanx!
> john
>
>
> On 5/13/2010 12:26 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
>>
>>
>> With 2 positives and tests on a number of platforms
>> I am calling for a vote on the NEW 2.1.0-unstable release:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jplevyak/
>>
>> This vote will conclude Monday 8AM.
>>
>> Please vote. This is an unstable and there will
>> be at least one more (2.1.1) before the next stable.
>>
>> john
>>
>>
>>
>>> Please take a look at
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~jplevyak/
>>>
>>> which contains the NEW candidate 2.1.0 unstable release.
>>>
>>> This is an unstable release, so it still contains a number
>>> of issues, but no serious regressions.
>>>
>>> Please consider it for release, I'll send out for a vote
>>> if I don't get a negative response by the end of day.
>>>
>>> john
>>
>
Re: 2.1.0-unstable Call for VOTE
Posted by John Plevyak <jp...@apache.org>.
Tar ball updated with RAT, LICENSE, NOTICE changes.
Other bits identical.
Vote by Monday 8AM.
Thanx!
john
On 5/13/2010 12:26 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
>
>
> With 2 positives and tests on a number of platforms
> I am calling for a vote on the NEW 2.1.0-unstable release:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jplevyak/
>
> This vote will conclude Monday 8AM.
>
> Please vote. This is an unstable and there will
> be at least one more (2.1.1) before the next stable.
>
> john
>
>
>
>> Please take a look at
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jplevyak/
>>
>> which contains the NEW candidate 2.1.0 unstable release.
>>
>> This is an unstable release, so it still contains a number
>> of issues, but no serious regressions.
>>
>> Please consider it for release, I'll send out for a vote
>> if I don't get a negative response by the end of day.
>>
>> john
>
2.1.0-unstable Call for VOTE
Posted by John Plevyak <jp...@acm.org>.
With 2 positives and tests on a number of platforms
I am calling for a vote on the NEW 2.1.0-unstable release:
http://people.apache.org/~jplevyak/
This vote will conclude Monday 8AM.
Please vote. This is an unstable and there will
be at least one more (2.1.1) before the next stable.
john
> Please take a look at
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jplevyak/
>
> which contains the NEW candidate 2.1.0 unstable release.
>
> This is an unstable release, so it still contains a number
> of issues, but no serious regressions.
>
> Please consider it for release, I'll send out for a vote
> if I don't get a negative response by the end of day.
>
> john
Re: 2.1.0-unstable
Posted by George Paul <ge...@apache.org>.
+1
Tested:
* platforms: ubuntu(9.0.4), OSX(10.5), FreeBSD(7.2),
OpenSolaris(osol0906)
* sig & hashes
* followed INSTALL procedures for the platforms above
* tested forward proxying via browser, etc.
-George
On 5/13/10 11:27 AM, Bryan Call wrote:
> Tested stuff on my system (Fedora 12 x86_64) and it looks good:
> - checked the hashes
> - untared and built with defaults
> - installed and ran benchmarks proxying to the origin and caching
> - checked file ownership and permissions
>
> -Bryan
>
> On May 13, 2010, at 10:45 AM, John Plevyak wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Please take a look at
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jplevyak/
>>
>> which contains the NEW candidate 2.1.0 unstable release.
>>
>> This is an unstable release, so it still contains a number
>> of issues, but no serious regressions.
>>
>> Please consider it for release, I'll send out for a vote
>> if I don't get a negative response by the end of day.
>>
>> john
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: 2.1.0-unstable
Posted by Bryan Call <bc...@yahoo-inc.com>.
Tested stuff on my system (Fedora 12 x86_64) and it looks good:
- checked the hashes
- untared and built with defaults
- installed and ran benchmarks proxying to the origin and caching
- checked file ownership and permissions
-Bryan
On May 13, 2010, at 10:45 AM, John Plevyak wrote:
>
>
> Please take a look at
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jplevyak/
>
> which contains the NEW candidate 2.1.0 unstable release.
>
> This is an unstable release, so it still contains a number
> of issues, but no serious regressions.
>
> Please consider it for release, I'll send out for a vote
> if I don't get a negative response by the end of day.
>
> john
>
>
>