On 4/6/19 10:47 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:03 PM Nick Kew <n...@apache.org > <mailto:n...@apache.org>> wrote: > > > > On 5 Apr 2019, at 19:53, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@apache.org > <mailto:wr...@apache.org>> wrote: > > > > Apache Portable Runtime APR 1.7.0 Released > > > > The Apache Software Foundation and the Apache Portable Runtime > > Project are proud to announce the General Availability of version > > 1.7.0 of the Apache Portable Runtime library (APR). Version 1.6.1 > > of the APR Utility library (APR-util) and version 1.2.2 of the > > APR iconv library (APR-iconv) remain current. > > Thanks, Bill. > > Just a quick note. Some of the announcement (expat, MySQL and FreeTDS) > relate not to this APR, but to APR-UTIL updates which are not part > of this release. > > > I'm aware. There is also the problem of our release tracking, we have > nothing > but apr versions there. I understood there is a mass-export-import > facility which > I'll look into, but basically "1.7.0" and prior all need to become > "apr-1.7.0" etc, > and then we need to import all the historical apr-util-* apr-iconv-* sets. > > Before the next release, we aught to split Announcement-x.x.x into distinct > files for the apr, apr-util and apr-iconv groups. As of 2.0.0 these all > merge up, > but in the interim... > > > I know you're keen to get an APR-UTIL update released reasonably > soon, and I > promise to tackle at least the XML issues I've been working on when > I get back home - > which I anticipate being second half of next week. We also have > some further > MySQL updates from an external contributor, which I hope to find > time to review > in time for APR-UTIL 1.7. > > > I was hoping that we could find a 6-12 week window for publishing the > next release.
At least two months would be good. However Apache foo is a *major* piece of the planetary software ecosystem possibly more so than ISC software. So a quarterly schedule ( 3 months ) may be more reasonable. > Since I started thinking about it, I'm wondering whether we should push > towards apr-util-1.7.0, or just get to apr-2.0.0 already. Other thoughts > or observations? Neither at this time. -- Dennis Clarke RISC-V/SPARC/PPC/ARM/CISC UNIX and Linux spoken GreyBeard and suspenders optional
