Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 02:26:39AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Provided that passes, and if nobody speaks quickly and loudly, I'll RM a
tarball once that vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] flies. Speak now if there are
issues :)
I don't know if it's implicit or not, but we shouldn't bundle unreleased
libraries, so it shouldn't be enough that an apr(-util) passed the vote,
it should be GA too. We need thicker chinese walls :)
Explain the distinction :) AFAIK APR is holding a vote on releasing 0.9.11.
AFAIK APR just held a vote and released 1.2.6. APR hasn't released any
alpha/beta versions in a very long time (probably wouldn't either, until they
get ready for APR 2.)
I've finally deleted that patch proposal which made no sense and taken a
look at some more of the proposals.
Rather than delete it - you could have also added the subsequent patches that
were applied to server/mpm/winnt/mpm_winnt.c. I put in that comment to prod
FirstBill to clarify which later patches were necessary.
Since this is our first post 2.2 GA release, do we still want feedback
from infra? downgrading a.o might send some bad signals ;-) Or maybe
there's a subdomain or two running 2.0 still?
I think we have alot of sandboxes, but it's true that we aren't quite in
shape to eat our own dogfood on 2.0.x anymore. On the other hand, we haven't
been running 1.3.x in a very long time, and yet (and rarely) ship a 1.3.x
without passing that metric. I doubt we can ever return to that state, but
if there are zones running 2.0 it would be nice to get this validated in the
real world.
On the other hand, it's a sorry state that we can't run anything other than
-dev today, I do expect 2.2.1 to be running on our post 2.0 infrastructure
before it will garner my +1.
Bill
