Thanks for the answer.
I shall keep the site down, I am very disappointed and I feel threatened by
you for legal stuff.
Steffen
----- Original Message -----
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 01:31
Subject: Re: Apachelounge problems
Steffen wrote:
This is a big booom for me and some fellow webmasters. And is
disappointing
me, special the style you are using. This style gives me the impression
that
ASF is not happy with Apache Lounge. Even I tried to promote Apache in
the
Windows world.
I think what you've done for creating a user community around Apache on
Win
is great! Please don't misunderstand that.
I've had to bring up this issue before, however, and it's very
disappointing
the message didn't get through. And just had oral surgery Thursday, so
color
me cranky.
I close the site now to further notice, till we sort out this issue. I
do
not want to promote an Apache when I get this kind of messages in Public
form one of the key guys from ASF.
Well, you should be aware there are no 'key guys' at the httpd project,
except
perhaps for Roy who happens to be the chairman (and he'll sign a note as
the
VP, httpd Project, if he's using that authority). It's a community of
equals.
There's no reason to shutter the site. Removing that item is more than
enough
to keep us happy, and to protect yourselves.
Just for testing this RC for our small community, we where thinking that
we
are helping. And it is stated in in the announcement and the readme says
that it is an Apache Lounge Distribution. Just a few are downloading it.
Maybe you misunderstood. We want *you* to try your *build* with that RC!
We don't want it distributed to end users, there's a big difference.
Let us know what's wrong with the tag, before you would be distributing it
for the community. I think we've done a reasonable job keeping up with
bug
fixes in the Win32 build, especially catching up with VC 2005, partly for
all the feedback you and fellow VS 2005 users have provided!
2.2.5 is at quite some more places to download, see for example:
http://isabelle.math.ist.utl.pt/~l55741/filesdir
Well, it shouldn't be, but that's a matter to bring up with them
individually.
Understand that there is *no* 2.2.5. It doesn't exist until 3 project
mbrs
have voted +1, there are more +1's than -1's, and the RM declares it baked
and moves it to www.apache.org/dist/httpd/. Ok?
I feel some emotion in your message, so better that from now on, we
should
not test any RC anymore ?
Because I brought this up before, last year? These are for developers to
verify, they aren't for user testing. Actually, we are looking at issues
such as;
* does it correspond to the tag?
* is it correctly licensed?
* is it correctly packaged?
* are any additions that appear to have IP encumbrances?
* does it build?
* does it run?
* does it pass the perl-framework regression tests?
Since it isn't a release, you don't want to 'ship' it.
You just want to let [EMAIL PROTECTED] know that you reviewed it, and are +/-1
for
release, so it gets baked quickly with no issues. You don't have to do
every
review step I mention above, but just perform the tests you like on the
platforms you like.
Having users asking questions about unreleased code just causes grief for
the
users@ community. You and our other testers know better; but they won't.
Once
we have that vote, and it's our release, it's the ASF's mistake if
something
went wrong.
I got: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The e-mail message could not be delivered because the user's mailfolder
is
full.
Weird (?!?) thanks for letting me know that!
Bill
