randy 98/03/27 06:22:37
Modified: . STATUS
Log:
The first thunderstorm of the year right now...
Revision Changes Path
1.224 +16 -3 apache-1.3/STATUS
Index: STATUS
===================================================================
RCS file: /export/home/cvs/apache-1.3/STATUS,v
retrieving revision 1.223
retrieving revision 1.224
diff -u -r1.223 -r1.224
--- STATUS 1998/03/27 08:09:00 1.223
+++ STATUS 1998/03/27 14:22:36 1.224
@@ -269,13 +269,20 @@
worth adding it by weighting on the advantages and disadvantages.
Votes for including APACI (in general):
- Ralf +1, Dean +1, Roy +1, Paul +1, Martin +1, Jim +1, Chuck +0
+ Ralf +1, Dean +1, Roy +1, Paul +1, Martin +1, Jim +1, Chuck +0,
+ Randy +0
Votes for commit variants:
- CV1: Ralf +1, Dean +1, Roy +1, Paul +1, Martin +1 Jim +1, Chuck +0
+ CV1: Ralf +1, Dean +1, Roy +1, Paul +1, Martin +1 Jim +1, Chuck +0,
+ Randy +0
CV2: Ralf +0
Notes:
+ Randy: Given the amount of work that Ralf has clearly done on this,
+ I would not veto it. However, I don't think this is something
+ that should go in for 1.3.0 general and I don't feel that the
+ current system is lacking enough that it needs replacing.
+ We're asking for trouble.
Chuck: What the heck. We're not releasing soon anymore. Let users
get used to it if there's time.
Jim: [the +1] iff we remove the "present" top-level build
@@ -428,8 +435,14 @@
Proposal: the next release should be named 1.3b6, and labelled "release
candidate on unix, beta on NT". The release after that will be
called 1.3.0 "stable on unix, beta on NT".
- +1: Jim, Ralf
+ +1: Jim, Ralf, Randy
+0: Dean
+
+ Notes:
+ Randy: APACI should go in a beta release if it is to go in at
all.
+ I would also argue that 1.3b6 is _not_ stable. I've been
+ having real fits keeping it alive on a dual processor
+ machine. Could be OS problems..
Win32 specific issues:
