I propose to T&R 2.2.28 on Tuesday; this gives people today, the weekend, and Monday to ensure 2.2.28 is in good enough shape to release.
Thx! On Aug 22, 2014, at 8:12 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > As noted, I already spent time creating a VM > of CentOS5 with the required toolchain, so I'm good > to go. > > On Aug 21, 2014, at 1:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:59:52 +0200 >> Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Jim Jagielski wrote: >>>> I offered to RM but OtherBill said he'd do it; plus, last >>>> time I did, I used more up-to-date versions of autoconf, et.al. >>>> and OtherBill complained that for the 2.2 built, we should >>>> continue to use the much older versions... >>>> >>>> FWIW, I still can't recall which old version numbers we >>>> should be using for 2.2... :/ >>> >>> Digging through the archives reveals: >>> >>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:00:52 -0500 >>> Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >>> >>>> So what versions of autoconf and libtool should we >>>> be baselining for 2.2.x? >>> >>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:56:39 -0600 >>> "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Libtool 1.5.26 and autoconf 2.67 were used for 2.2.25 release; any >>>> later 1.5 libtool or 2.6x series autoconf aught to work but you >>>> would want to pre- buildconf and review any newer versions before >>>> tagging. >> >> That about sums it up. Sorry, I am still drowning in my late father's >> affairs for another 3-4 weeks, but will make time to do this in 2 hours >> from now, sum up votes and move files Sun a.m. for a Mon a.m. release. >> That saves anyone else from creating an older toolchain (even I never >> use this one on the development branches). >> >> I see three patches to apply, if nobody beats me to it I'll merge them, >> but dibs goes to the proposer. About Eric's comment, given the delay >> we should pick up that patch, it can simply encourage us to get 2.4.11 >> out in the reasonably near future. >> >> I'd love to see us pick up newer autoconf/libtool, preferably not on a >> security release... perhaps we can come up with a bugfix release that >> lets us let new conf scripts out into the wild for wider review? >> >> I was not waiting on the utf-8 services patch, but am looking forward to >> some of our international windows users giving that patch a spin and >> sounding in on the fix for international service names. >
