According to the Apache rules we need three +1 votes. As there are only 4 of us voting the two +0 votes are already enough to kill the proposal. (I should have done the math this morning. ;) )

I'll commit Grahams' _conn_read fix and generate the 3.2.7 tarball shortly. I'm also +1 on releasing 3.2.7 without a restrained testing period.


Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
My official vote is eventually -1 for 3.2.6, see the previous
discussion for why I've changed my mind.

However I'm +1 on releasing 3.2.7 without a restrained testing period,
not a long one like for 3.2.6.


2006/2/2, Jim Gallacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

I know you said no discussion Grisha, but can I have 2 ballots? ;)

-1 If Graham thinks his conn handler fix is good, let's do 3.2.7 today.

+1 If Graham is not sure, we release 3.2.6 now as is, and do a 3.2.7
bugfix in the next 4 to 6 weeks after digging into _conn_read issue further.

So, I guess that makes my official vote a +0.

Over to you Graham. No pressure though. :)


(Dang, it makes me feel dirty to waffle on my first offical vote that way).

Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:

OK, I know we've had some votes on this before, but I'd like to put this
in a separate thread where it's not intermixed with all kinds of other

This is a vote for the core group. We can release the 3.2.6 tarball as
is or fix the connection handler bugs (there are two of them - the
buffer pointer and eagain condition Graham tracked down) and release a
3.2.7 (or The rationale for disregarding those known issues is
that the connection handler is hardly used by anyone. The rationale for
NOT disregarding is that we claim this to be a stable release, and given
our slow release cycle, I imagine 3.2.6 will be around for a while.

Anyhow - *the core group* (you know who you are), if you think 3.2.6
should be released as is, send in your +1.

Let's keep this thread strictly a vote, without it turning into a
discussion (we can discuss things in other threads).

My official vote is +0.

(To see what this means read


Reply via email to