jim 98/04/13 19:38:17
Modified: . STATUS
Log:
Minor 1.3b6 stuff and remove the idea about this
being 1.3.0... no one voted for it and now with the Great
Renaming, a beta test is really required
Revision Changes Path
1.294 +3 -15 apache-1.3/STATUS
Index: STATUS
===================================================================
RCS file: /export/home/cvs/apache-1.3/STATUS,v
retrieving revision 1.293
retrieving revision 1.294
diff -u -r1.293 -r1.294
--- STATUS 1998/04/12 15:49:24 1.293
+++ STATUS 1998/04/14 02:38:16 1.294
@@ -2,7 +2,8 @@
Release:
- 1.3b6: freeze; release proposed for Friday, April 17
+ 1.3b6: freeze; release proposed for Friday, April 17. Need
+ a RM (if no one volunteers, Jim will do it).
1.3b5: Tagged APACHE_1_3b5 and released
2.0 : In pre-alpha development, see apache-2.0 repository
@@ -278,18 +279,6 @@
best interest to continue to support Unix to its utmost, and not delay
a release of 1.3.0 waiting for WIN32 issues to be resolved.
- Proposal: the next release should be named 1.3.0 and should be labelled
- "stable on unix, beta on NT".
- +1:
- -0: Ralf (because we've done a lot of good but new stuff
- in 1.3b6-dev now and we should give us at least
- one pre-release before the so-called "release" [1.3.0].
- But we should not take again many months. 1.3.0 should
- be kicked out as soon as possible after 1.3b6 is out. So
- we should commit APACI, test a few days again, release
- 1.3b6, look for the responses, fix a few bugs and then
- roll 1.3.0 out of the door marked as stated above)
-
Proposal: the next release should be named 1.3b6, and labelled "release
candidate on unix, beta on NT". The release after that will be
called 1.3.0 "stable on unix, beta on NT".
@@ -297,8 +286,7 @@
+0:
Notes:
- Randy: APACI should go in a beta release if it is to go in at
all.
- I would also argue that 1.3b6 is _not_ stable. I've been
+ Randy: I would also argue that 1.3b6 is _not_ stable. I've been
having real fits keeping it alive on a dual processor
machine. Could be OS problems..
