On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:59 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Sander Temme wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
It is mostly the same people, regardless. Bill could tag 0.9.15
and start a release vote on APR while Jim rebuilds 2.0.x based
on that tag and starts another release vote here. That way, lazy
folks like me can test both at once.
I'm rolling APR snaps no later than first thing Wed a.m.
No issue if Jim combines an apr release candidate with an httpd
candidate, as long as everyone is ok that if apr goes boom, httpd
would need to be rerolled.
This is pretty stable code, so I'm not worried.
With the Darwin fixes, I'd almost like to see 2.2.6 rerolled, with
no change to httpd. Does anyone else find an objection to that?
Jim, would it inflict too much pain to do this wed/thus?
I've no problem with 2.0 and 2.2 being re-tagged and re-rolled
to incorporate the latest APR fixes... Wed/Thurs is fine
with me :)
Just a FYI... 2.2.6 (httpd-2.2 head) with apr 1.2.10 (apr-1.2 head)
show no regressions from the 2.2.5 tarball, so even though we
don't need to reroll 2.2.5, I think it's best to do
so, since we need to redo 2.0.x anyway...
Once Bill tags APR, I'll do more pre-tag regressions,
re-roll 2.x and then look at releasing next week.
