To confirm Jim's arithmetic anyway, I say -1 on 3.2.6 as it stands. As to 3.2.7, I say +1, subject to removal of problematic test case as already raised and with us at least confirming tests run OK for version out of SVN prior to packaging.
Graham Jim Gallacher wrote .. > According to the Apache rules we need three +1 votes. As there are only > 4 of us voting the two +0 votes are already enough to kill the proposal. > (I should have done the math this morning. ;) ) > > I'll commit Grahams' _conn_read fix and generate the 3.2.7 tarball > shortly. I'm also +1 on releasing 3.2.7 without a restrained testing period. > > Jim > > > Nicolas Lehuen wrote: > > My official vote is eventually -1 for 3.2.6, see the previous > > discussion for why I've changed my mind. > > > > However I'm +1 on releasing 3.2.7 without a restrained testing period, > > not a long one like for 3.2.6. > > > > Regards, > > Nicolas > > > > 2006/2/2, Jim Gallacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >>I know you said no discussion Grisha, but can I have 2 ballots? ;) > >> > >>-1 If Graham thinks his conn handler fix is good, let's do 3.2.7 today. > >> > >>+1 If Graham is not sure, we release 3.2.6 now as is, and do a 3.2.7 > >>bugfix in the next 4 to 6 weeks after digging into _conn_read issue further. > >> > >>So, I guess that makes my official vote a +0. > >> > >>Over to you Graham. No pressure though. :) > >> > >>Jim > >> > >>(Dang, it makes me feel dirty to waffle on my first offical vote that > way). > >> > >>Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote: > >> > >>>OK, I know we've had some votes on this before, but I'd like to put > this > >>>in a separate thread where it's not intermixed with all kinds of other > >>>things. > >>> > >>>This is a vote for the core group. We can release the 3.2.6 tarball > as > >>>is or fix the connection handler bugs (there are two of them - the > >>>buffer pointer and eagain condition Graham tracked down) and release > a > >>>3.2.7 (or 3.2.6.1). The rationale for disregarding those known issues > is > >>>that the connection handler is hardly used by anyone. The rationale > for > >>>NOT disregarding is that we claim this to be a stable release, and given > >>>our slow release cycle, I imagine 3.2.6 will be around for a while. > >>> > >>>Anyhow - *the core group* (you know who you are), if you think 3.2.6 > >>>should be released as is, send in your +1. > >>> > >>>Let's keep this thread strictly a vote, without it turning into a > >>>discussion (we can discuss things in other threads). > >>> > >>>My official vote is +0. > >>> > >>>(To see what this means read http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html) > >>> > >>>Grisha > >>> > >> > >> > >
