Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> I disagree quite strongly. Take a look at the CHANGES file for 2.0.25.
> We have fixed at least on seg fault in mod_mime, a memory leak in
> mod_mime_magic, and two major fixes to the build system.
>
> 2.0.25 is far better than 2.0.24,
It may be better, but that remains to be proven. Sure, I like the
concept of the changes, but the implementation details sometimes bite
us.
> and I have very little confidence in re-tagging
> a week after the original tag.
I have a great deal of confidence in the code currently running on
daedalus. We could easily produce tarballs and binaries that match it.
Lately, we haven't been breaking the build as often as we used to, and
most of the time you can just grab the current HEAD and serve static
pages and much more. Thanks to everybody for making that happen...this
is progress.
However, the bugs are getting more subtle and take longer to debug and
fix. With our current process, a great deal of new code can be
committed while the gnarly problem in last tarball is being debugged.
Why would we think that the new code is any less likely to contain
serious bugs than the previous set of changes? How do we get off this
treadmill?
Greg
