On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:46:55 -0600 "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:15:46 -0500 > Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > I think it's about time for 2.4.4... just a handful > > of proposed backports are still open. I propose we > > do a T&R the end of next week with a release the > > week after that. I'll be RM. > > > > Comments? > > +1, it's been a while, thanks for RM'ing! > > I'd be happy to go ahead and tag 2.2.24 while we are at it, > and will look through STATUS for all the low hanging fruit, > vote up some backports, apply accepted backports, etc. STATUS and backports are looking great. As noted in another thread, this is the version that the world is actually using. I plan to tag between late Friday 15 Feb eve, and Saturday. The remaining STATUS items only have a vote or two, or are contested and can't really be expected to hit this tag. It might be a bit late to add more to STATUS for consideration, but if you were going to evalute any of these patches, now is your opportunity. Where there are valid grounds for debate, we should elevate those from the status file to dev@ for wider visibility. The tag and tarballs will be on the same box as 2.2.23 (that VM didn't have to be rebuilt :) We should embrace the newest, latest and greatest autogunk, but only on head. It doesn't do users much good if the prior tar.gz built just fine, but this tarball doesn't build on their platform. I think the Win 2003/VC 6 machine is finished - I was pulled off to a convention of another color last weekend, and didn't have the chance to put that to the test. I'll follow with win32 binaries for both 2.2.23 and 2.2.24 [for users who encounter .24 specific bugs] based on VC 6, and next week, try to catch up on progress the community has made on a 2.4 build. Any concerns, please shout out. Bill
