Cliff Woolley wrote:
> Should the Announcement contain all changes since 2.0.27, since 2.0.18
> (the last public release), or since 2.0.16 (the beta)?
>
> I'm feel like it should contain all of the changes since the last public
> release, but wow, that's a lot.
Thinking about Joe User, or just any reporter out there, attaching the
official CHANGES file to the announcement looks irrelevant.
Looking at the infinite list of changes, I think that it may be better
to leave it for the "CHANGES" file. The announcement should only have a
public link to aseparate copy of CHANGES.html file at apache.org; The
official announcement itself, should only have a readable (for dummies)
list like this (ONLY AN EXAMPLE):
* 178 performance optimizations
* 117 memory improvements
* 79 fixes of retuned values and returned codes
* SSL support
* Proxy support
* 24 anomalies (like PORT<=>LISTEN) resolved
* Ported to 31 new platforms + 92 portability improvements
* 214 doc improvements
* 57 improvements to messages, reports and logging
* 35 MPM/multi-threading fixes
* 12 new MIME types
* 25 security improvements
* 41 features, supported by 1.3.20 and not by 2.0.18
* 5 new modules
* 14 new directives and 24 conf options and parameters
* Re-implementation of 4 existing modules, now as filters
* etc.
("improvements" sounds better than "bug fixes", or "memory leaks"...)
Of course, the "Known Issues" must remain, as well as a clear link to
the official CHANGES file, as well as a list of incompatibilities (like
the "Port" directive).
But all of these suggestions, are only my humble opinion...
P.S. Isn't there any PR agency working for ASF?
--
Eli Marmor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CTO, Founder
Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd.
__________________________________________________________
Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St.
Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004
Mobile: +972-50-23-7338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel
