Re: Why is 1.3 still on the download page?

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On 2/10/2011 12:33 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/10/2011 9:34 AM, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
>> Issac Goldstand wrote:
>>> Am I getting senile, or didn't we vote on making 1.3 End-Of-Life
>>> already?  If so, why is 1.3.42 still featured on our download page as a
>>> "current recommended release" a year later?  Isn't it time to change
>>> that to a note saying something to the extent of "If you absolutely MUST
>>> continue using 1.3, you can download it from the archive?"
>>
>> Big +1.
> 
> +1 here too - I proposed but the group decided to leave it there for a while.
>> 1 year is more than a 'while' :)

I've seen no objections, and count 3 +1's to remove these, so I'm cleaning
this up today.

Re: Why is 1.3 still on the download page?

[Dan Poirier <po...@pobox.com>]

On Mon. 2011-03-21 at 06:55 AM EDT, "Malte S. Stretz" <ms...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Monday 21 March 2011 11:30:26 Vincent Bray wrote:
>> On 20 March 2011 20:23, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> > I've seen no objections, and count 3 +1's to remove these, so I'm
>> > cleaning this up today.
>> 
>> Perhaps also someone would be kind enough to remove the weekly 1.3
>> bugzilla summary?
>
> There are currently still 63 bugs against v1.3 [1].  I'd wade through that 
> list, look at each bug and either
>
> (a) Close it as WONTFIX if the comments talk about v1.3.x only.
>
> (b) Change the product to httpd-2 if any comment states that it happens in 
> v2.x, too, adding a polite reminder to retest with a non-ancient version 
> if it wasn't updated for some time and maybe close it as NEEDINFO.
>
> Does anybody mind?

+1, thanks for offering.

Re: Why is 1.3 still on the download page?

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:06 AM, "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group"
<ru...@vodafone.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Malte S. Stretz
>> Sent: Montag, 21. März 2011 11:56
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Why is 1.3 still on the download page?
>>
>> On Monday 21 March 2011 11:30:26 Vincent Bray wrote:
>> > On 20 March 2011 20:23, William A. Rowe Jr.
>> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> > > I've seen no objections, and count 3 +1's to remove these, so I'm
>> > > cleaning this up today.
>> >
>> > Perhaps also someone would be kind enough to remove the weekly 1.3
>> > bugzilla summary?
>>
>> There are currently still 63 bugs against v1.3 [1].  I'd wade
>> through that
>> list, look at each bug and either
>>
>> (a) Close it as WONTFIX if the comments talk about v1.3.x only.
>>
>> (b) Change the product to httpd-2 if any comment states that
>> it happens in
>> v2.x, too, adding a polite reminder to retest with a
>> non-ancient version
>> if it wasn't updated for some time and maybe close it as NEEDINFO.
>>
>> Does anybody mind?
>
> IMHO go ahead with the above.

+1

RE: Why is 1.3 still on the download page?

["Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Malte S. Stretz 
> Sent: Montag, 21. März 2011 11:56
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Why is 1.3 still on the download page?
> 
> On Monday 21 March 2011 11:30:26 Vincent Bray wrote:
> > On 20 March 2011 20:23, William A. Rowe Jr. 
> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> > > I've seen no objections, and count 3 +1's to remove these, so I'm
> > > cleaning this up today.
> > 
> > Perhaps also someone would be kind enough to remove the weekly 1.3
> > bugzilla summary?
> 
> There are currently still 63 bugs against v1.3 [1].  I'd wade 
> through that 
> list, look at each bug and either
> 
> (a) Close it as WONTFIX if the comments talk about v1.3.x only.
> 
> (b) Change the product to httpd-2 if any comment states that 
> it happens in 
> v2.x, too, adding a polite reminder to retest with a 
> non-ancient version 
> if it wasn't updated for some time and maybe close it as NEEDINFO.
> 
> Does anybody mind?

IMHO go ahead with the above.

Regards

Rüdiger

Re: Why is 1.3 still on the download page?

["Malte S. Stretz" <ms...@apache.org>]

On Monday 21 March 2011 11:30:26 Vincent Bray wrote:
> On 20 March 2011 20:23, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> > I've seen no objections, and count 3 +1's to remove these, so I'm
> > cleaning this up today.
> 
> Perhaps also someone would be kind enough to remove the weekly 1.3
> bugzilla summary?

There are currently still 63 bugs against v1.3 [1].  I'd wade through that 
list, look at each bug and either

(a) Close it as WONTFIX if the comments talk about v1.3.x only.

(b) Change the product to httpd-2 if any comment states that it happens in 
v2.x, too, adding a polite reminder to retest with a non-ancient version 
if it wasn't updated for some time and maybe close it as NEEDINFO.

Does anybody mind?

Cheers,
Malte


[1]https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=httpd-1.3

Re: Why is 1.3 still on the download page?

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On 3/21/2011 5:30 AM, Vincent Bray wrote:
> On 20 March 2011 20:23, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> I've seen no objections, and count 3 +1's to remove these, so I'm cleaning
>> this up today.
> 
> Perhaps also someone would be kind enough to remove the weekly 1.3
> bugzilla summary?

This had already been requested (before I even started website edits).

Re: Why is 1.3 still on the download page?

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com> wrote:
>
> On 21 Mar 2011, at 10:30, Vincent Bray wrote:
>
>> On 20 March 2011 20:23, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>> I've seen no objections, and count 3 +1's to remove these, so I'm cleaning
>>> this up today.
>>
>> Perhaps also someone would be kind enough to remove the weekly 1.3
>> bugzilla summary?
>
> Does anyone look at those summaries?
>
> I sometimes catch a bug report from the mail it generates, but for an overview
> I'll always use issues.apache.org.  Weekly summaries are just an annoyance.

+1

> I guess they might do some good as a nudge if bugs got assigned to individuals!

With paycheck too I presume ;)

Re: Why is 1.3 still on the download page?

[Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>]

On 21 Mar 2011, at 10:30, Vincent Bray wrote:

> On 20 March 2011 20:23, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> I've seen no objections, and count 3 +1's to remove these, so I'm cleaning
>> this up today.
> 
> Perhaps also someone would be kind enough to remove the weekly 1.3
> bugzilla summary?

Does anyone look at those summaries?

I sometimes catch a bug report from the mail it generates, but for an overview
I'll always use issues.apache.org.  Weekly summaries are just an annoyance.

I guess they might do some good as a nudge if bugs got assigned to individuals!

-- 
Nick Kew

Available for work, contract or permanent
http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html

Re: Why is 1.3 still on the download page?

[Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com>]

On 20 March 2011 20:23, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> I've seen no objections, and count 3 +1's to remove these, so I'm cleaning
> this up today.

Perhaps also someone would be kind enough to remove the weekly 1.3
bugzilla summary?

-- 
noodl