On 5/13/2011 9:31 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On May 13, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 11 May 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> >>>> The candidate tarballs for 2.3.12 are now available at: >>>> >>>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ >>>> >>>> I'm opening up a vote to release these as 2.3.12-beta, with >>>> a hope to push on for a quick GA after maybe another beta >>>> release in the near future. >>> >>> +1 for httpd 2.3.12-beta (with external apr/apu) >>> >>> As noted by Rainer, the apu in httpd-2.3.12-beta-deps is broken, though. Is >>> this ok or should the deps tarball be rerolled? >>> >> >> Reroll with what is the question? An older apu? We can't roll with >> HEAD. >> >> Maybe we could, with our APR hats on, push out a quick APU 1.3.12... > > We should definitely have a new apr (Windows issue) and apu (LDAP > issue) before long, but what about just providing patches for this > beta? I doubt that anyone consuming the beta would have a problem > with that.
We should /not/ be halting a *beta* when one platform, one feature, or any other single documented issue has an issue. Versions and releases are cheap, release it and get on with the next beta :) The windows issue is a non-issue (cruft in the bin/ directory, oh well) and the apu issue affects users who configure auth_ldap, right? Betas are not meant to be perfect, and they are no fun if there are no bugs.
