On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 17:37 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Not unless -1's appear.
OK, thanks. I was asking because there were a few commits to trunk that would be worth backporting in case you were re-spinning. Unless people object, I will do that soon, so that I don't forget before 1.3.1. In particular, I'm referring here to: - r661178, 662326: thread safe apr_getservbyname() - r661146, 662114, 662300: apr_shm: fix failure in test_named_remove - r662299: silence GCC strict aliasing warning for APR rings Maybe even something along these lines, provided we all agree how it should be done now that API is frozen: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg20247.html > It's not the cleanest build, but it's not a regression given that this > build schema didn't exist until 1.2.12, and it does build, with some noise. Yeah, I reckon for .0 is not all that bad :-) > Of course I'm fixing everything I see so that 1.3.1 (when it is rolled) > is golden. I'd also be a fan of the next bugfix point release sometime > in July, or August at the latest. I don't think we should be waiting > so long between releases, Absolutely. > So I plan to vote shortly (almost done with win32 packages and my own > votes), and extend the vote another 12 hours to give everyone a chance > to cast their actual vote. I would be very interested in seeing a vote from Joe, as he cast one of the -1 votes during the release planning process. I did build 1.3.0 APR/APU RPMs (locally) on Fedora, so I know that part should be mostly OK, but Joe is Fedora/RHEL Apache maintainer and his input would be invaluable on this. -- Bojan
