On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > Any others with time to look thru 2.0.65's STATUS file. > There are a handful of "showstoppers" that I'm thinking > about "deferring" and pushing ahead with the 2.0.65 release.
I'll try to find a little time. My 2 cents (which I won't throw at any group of 3 that wants to put out a 2.0.nnn): I don't think we should "defer" anything. Given the lack of time+interest, IMO the only 2.0.x after 2.0.65 should be to resolve unintended regressions introduced with 2.0.65, and bugs left unfixed in 2.0.65 can remain. Then we wash our hands of it. > > On Oct 1, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I can't recall either, but doing so in conjunction with >> the 2.0.65 release likely makes sense. >> >> On Sep 30, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 9/30/2012 10:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>>> There was an email on users@httpd that reminded me that 2.0.65 has >>>> been long left in a holding pattern. >>>> >>>> Anyone opposed to me pushing for a 2.0.65 release by the >>>> end of this week? >>> >>> No opposition, but this does remind me about the when-will-2.0-be-EOL >>> conversation. I think consensus was 1 year after the first 2.4 release >>> but I don't think I've seen such an announcement (I could have just >>> missed it, too). >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Ruggeri >>> >> > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
