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 2010/05/12 23:01:26 UTC
2.1.0 unstable release VOTE!
Please take a look at
http://people.apache.org/~jplevyak/
which contains the candidate 2.1.0 unstable release.
Please vote on releasing these bits.
+1
john
Re: 2.1.0 unstable release VOTE!
Posted by John Plevyak <jp...@acm.org>.
Correction, we are waiting on TS-345 for 2.1.0.
Stay tuned for new bits.
john
On 5/12/2010 2:01 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
>
>
> Please take a look at
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jplevyak/
>
> which contains the candidate 2.1.0 unstable release.
>
>
> Please vote on releasing these bits.
>
> +1
>
> john
Re: 2.1.0 unstable release VOTE!
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 05/14/2010 11:12 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 05/14/2010 06:59 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This ain't going to happen in 2.1.0
>>> Not sure how promptly you guys expect 2.1.1
>>
>> Release often, and early I think? I don't know what will go into 2.1.1,
>> but I have no problems doing a biweekly release (or simply as often as
>> necessary).
>>
>
> Sure, +1 for frequent releases.
> The entire layout cleanup and ditching all hard coded paths
> will probably take me a week, together with testing.
Sounds good, I'm trying to see if I can understand the HttpSM stuff
enough to change some of the internals to allow for >2GB objects. I have
no idea how long it will take, but probably at least a week :).
-- Leif
Re: 2.1.0 unstable release VOTE!
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
On 05/14/2010 06:59 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
>>
>> This ain't going to happen in 2.1.0
>> Not sure how promptly you guys expect 2.1.1
>
> Release often, and early I think? I don't know what will go into 2.1.1,
> but I have no problems doing a biweekly release (or simply as often as
> necessary).
>
Sure, +1 for frequent releases.
The entire layout cleanup and ditching all hard coded paths
will probably take me a week, together with testing.
Regards
--
^TM
Re: 2.1.0 unstable release VOTE!
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
> On 05/12/2010 11:34 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>>
>> Finally, I think Mladen wanted one more bug to get landed into trunk,
>> I'll defer to him and you on deciding if this should be landed or not.
>> We obviously want to avoid possibly breaking builds on various platforms
>> at this point, so if it lands, we'll have to test trunk on as many
>> platforms as possible.
>>
>
> This ain't going to happen in 2.1.0
> Not sure how promptly you guys expect 2.1.1
Release often, and early I think? I don't know what will go into 2.1.1,
but I have no problems doing a biweekly release (or simply as often as
necessary).
-- Leif
Re: 2.1.0 unstable release VOTE!
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
On 05/12/2010 11:34 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
> Finally, I think Mladen wanted one more bug to get landed into trunk,
> I'll defer to him and you on deciding if this should be landed or not.
> We obviously want to avoid possibly breaking builds on various platforms
> at this point, so if it lands, we'll have to test trunk on as many
> platforms as possible.
>
This ain't going to happen in 2.1.0
Not sure how promptly you guys expect 2.1.1
There are couple of things I wish to fix together with TS-345
1. Config layout system (TS-280)
2. Additional ink_file_path_merge API (port from APR)
3. Single ServerRootRelative API for calculating all paths (TS-169)
(basically Httpd's ap_server_root_relative)
4. Extracting some common definitions into separate files
(mostly removing repetitive #defines form .cc into .h files)
5. Resolving all hard coded paths and make it either configurable
or run-time defined.
Regards
--
^TM
Re: 2.1.0 unstable release VOTE!
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 5/12/10 3:01 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
>
> Please take a look at
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jplevyak/
>
> which contains the candidate 2.1.0 unstable release.
>
>
> Please vote on releasing these bits.
>
I checked the sig / checksums, and those look good. It compiles and
starts on my MacOSX box, so that looks look.
I think we should update the STATUS file with the release status. In
particular, the status file on 2.0.x includes
2.0.0 : Released on April 28th, 2010
2.0.0-alpha : Released March 13, 2010
that should (IMO) be "backported" to trunk and your 2.1.0 tag. I also
think you should add the expected release date for 2.1.0 to this release
(and obviously remove the "under developement" for that release.
Finally, I think Mladen wanted one more bug to get landed into trunk,
I'll defer to him and you on deciding if this should be landed or not.
We obviously want to avoid possibly breaking builds on various platforms
at this point, so if it lands, we'll have to test trunk on as many
platforms as possible.
I'll vote '-0' for this candidate.
-- leif