On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 03:05:26PM -0500, Garrett Rooney wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > >So my personal desire would be to release 2.0.45, with its bugfixes > >based on APR 0.9.2 (release). Would anyone object to that symytry?
If "based on APR 0.9.2", you mean: APR(UTIL) releases "soon", and httpd next week, referring to 0.9.2 as a minimum version, then yes. If "based on" means snapping APR into httpd, then no. [ I suspect the former, so all is good with me ] >... > >The only other 'little thing' I want to do is bring in Allen Edward's > >suggestions for debugging symbols for win32 release builds, so > >those of us bug hunting can track down pesky segfaults and other > >odd behavior from Win32 core dumps. It's a trivial patch, I'm just > >trying to figure out how we can also get WinNT .dbg symbol files > >out of the deal without too much pain. Let's not hold the release on this. If that misses 0.9.2, then we can always snap another release. > in that case, why don't we wait for this change, then roll 0.9.2? now > that the issues with the configure scripts that kept us from building > from a released tarball have been resolved, i'd like to see apr making > releases more often, so client apps (apache, subversion, etc) can simply > use those rather than pulling something out of cvs. I totally agree. I'd love to release them myself, but haven't been finding the time :-( Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
