Does httpd work with buildbot or considering buildbot (was: Re: 2.4.35 in Sept?)

On 12/09/2018 22:47, Jim Jagielski wrote: > The idea is that people actually take the time to download the tarballs, > build a version of httpd for their use and then perform testing on said > version such that they can vote on whether to release it or not. That testing > entails such

Re: 2.4.35 in Sept?

Hi, Bill; I would be game for tagging and rolling 2.4.35 and 2.4.36 shortly after. I can volunteer to do both... in fact, with the scripts in place (but needing some minor cleanup, I think), I'm generally willing to T on-demand barring personal things that would keep me from doing so. --

Re: 2.4.35 in Sept?

I'm unaware of anything blocking a tag today, if someone wants to proceed. What is gained by waiting a few days to slip in another rushed patch to break yet another release? I see nothing in STATUS necessary to fix 2.4 regressions, but many proposed behavioral changes which suggest the likelyhood

Re: 2.4.35 in Sept?

On 9/12/2018 1:47 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: What improvements do you have to suggest to improve upon this? Do you recommend a longer vote time? Do you recommend beta and/or release-candidates? Do you recommend that the 1st born of all voters be held in a camp until the release has "proven"

Re: 2.4.35 in Sept?

> On Sep 12, 2018, at 4:14 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Since we still have no schema to solve the project maintenance side of > shipping source code Sorry, but we have this thing called creating test tarballs and calling for a vote. I am sure you remember that. The idea is that people

Re: 2.4.35 in Sept?

> On Sep 12, 2018, at 4:14 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:01 AM Jim Jagielski > wrote: > If there is still interest, there are a handful of useful backports in STATUS > that could use review, testing and voting :-) > > Unless the goal is

Re: 2.4.35 in Sept?

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:01 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: > If there is still interest, there are a handful of useful backports in > STATUS that could use review, testing and voting :-) > Unless the goal is to replace one set of regressions with a new set of regressions, it's past due to tag 2.4.35

Re: 2.4.35 in Sept?

If there is still interest, there are a handful of useful backports in STATUS that could use review, testing and voting :-) > On Aug 29, 2018, at 10:10 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Looking to maybe do an interim release in Sept... > > Comments? Feedback?

Re: 2.4.35 in Sept?

On 08/31/2018 12:49 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: Hi, Dennis; We took a look at that a year-ish ago, but couldn't find critical mass to release the produced candidate. Are there things in trunk you are particularly interested in? -- Thank you Daniel and yes, I have considerable interest in

Re: 2.4.35 in Sept?

Hi, Dennis; We took a look at that a year-ish ago, but couldn't find critical mass to release the produced candidate. Are there things in trunk you are particularly interested in? -- Daniel Ruggeri On August 31, 2018 8:29:04 AM MST, Dennis Clarke wrote: >On 08/31/2018 02:40 AM, Luca

Re: 2.4.35 in Sept?

On 08/31/2018 02:40 AM, Luca Toscano wrote: 2018-08-29 16:10 GMT+02:00 Jim Jagielski : Looking to maybe do an interim release in Sept... Comments? Feedback? +1 from me, looking forward to see mod-ratelimit fixed :) Are there any talks anywhere about a pre-release or "beta" of 2.5.1 or

Re: 2.4.35 in Sept?

2018-08-29 16:10 GMT+02:00 Jim Jagielski : > Looking to maybe do an interim release in Sept... > > Comments? Feedback? +1 from me, looking forward to see mod-ratelimit fixed :) Luca

2.4.35 in Sept?

Looking to maybe do an interim release in Sept... Comments? Feedback?