I'd like to announce and release the 11th.
Are we still on track for this? Reports seem to have been good ...
Kean
cross-posting to test-dev@, which is probably where we ought to discuss the
gory details...
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
at this point the test part of the perl-framework is
On May 9, 2004, at 4:18 PM, Geoffrey Young wrote:
t/apache/errordoc.t 2 51214 14 100.00% 1-14
I added that test recently and it passes for me on fedora. can you try
$ t/TEST t/apache/errordoc.t -v
and send that along (along with any relevant error_log messages).
that all
tests
Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at
/home/sctemme/asf/perl-framework/Apache-Test/lib/Apache/TestRequest.pm
The single request for /index.html is the framework's ping to see if
the server has started. It is not part of the errordoc tests, which
suggests that
On May 9, 2004, at 4:18 PM, Geoffrey Young wrote:
t/apache/errordoc.t 2 51214 14 100.00% 1-14
I added that test recently and it passes for me on fedora. can you try
$ t/TEST t/apache/errordoc.t -v
and send that along (along with any relevant error_log messages).
that all
Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at
/home/sctemme/asf/perl-framework/Apache-Test/lib/Apache/TestRequest.pm
The single request for /index.html is the framework's ping to see if
the server has started. It is not part of the errordoc tests, which
suggests that
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Via:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Looks good on SCO OpenServer 5.0.7 and UnixWare 7.1.3.
Kean
Looks good on gentoo as well.
chuck
On Sunday 09 May 2004 17:02, Kean Johnston wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Via:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Looks good on SCO OpenServer 5.0.7 and UnixWare 7.1.3.
Kean
cross-posting to test-dev@, which is probably where we ought to discuss the
gory details...
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
at this point the test part of the perl-framework is
Aaron Bannert wrote:
I believe that a strict QA process actually hurts the quality
of OSS projects like Apache. We have a gigantic pool of
talented users who would love to give us a hand by testing
our latest and greatest in every contorted way imaginable.
But we're holding out on them.
I ran the perl-framework against the tarball on three platforms:
On Darwin MonaLisa 7.3.0 Darwin Kernel Version 7.3.0: Fri Mar 5
14:22:55 PST 2004; root:xnu/xnu-517.3.15.obj~4/RELEASE_PPC Power
Macintosh powerpc
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
On May 8, 2004, at 4:05 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I don't consider us a closely held ivory-tower QA and I would
say that if anyone knows of a talented pool of users would would
like to test RCs, then we should have a mechanism to use them.
That was the intent for the current/stable-testers list,
Aaron Bannert wrote:
I still don't see
why any stage in the release process should be closed, though.
We don't make any guarantees about any of our code at any time,
Well, yes, you're right, we don't make any guarantees, but
certainly our intent and desire is that we produce the best
Via:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'd like to announce and release the 11th.
The URL has been posted on slashdot :-(
Joshua.
* Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The URL has been posted on slashdot :-(
:-( I'd say, let's move it away. It's not released yet. period.
nd
--
print Just Another Perl Hacker;
# André Malo, http://pub.perlig.de/ #
* Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|__ Fri, May 07, 2004 at 03:14:08PM -0400:
The URL has been posted on slashdot :-(
Oh no. It's not official yet. :-/
--
Chip Cuccio| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NORLUG VP and Sysadmin | http://norlug.org/~chipster/
Northfield Linux Users'
On May 7, 2004, at 8:15 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Via:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'd like to announce and release the 11th.
Except Slashdot beat you to the punch: http://apache.slashdot.org/.
S.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A
I have made the tarballs unavailable from the below URL. People
should contact me directly to obtain the correct URL...
Sander Temme wrote:
--Apple-Mail-1-423850141
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
On May 7, 2004,
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I have made the tarballs unavailable from the below URL. People
should contact me directly to obtain the correct URL...
I'd like to give it a testing shoot for the cygwin platform on recent
cygwin 1.5.x versions. Can you drop me an URL for it Jim please?
Stipe
Why is it bad if people download the RC version and
test it? Frankly, I really don't mind if slashdot or anyone
else broadcasts that we have an RC tarball available.
If anything it's a good thing. We don't make any guarantees
about our code anyway, so whether or not we call it a GA
release is just
The trouble is that we need to perform *some* sort of quality
control out there... The option is as soon as we have a tarball
out, it's immediately released, in which case why even bother
with a test or RC candidate. We need to, IMO, impose some
sort of order and process on how we release s/w, and
* Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it bad if people download the RC version and
test it?
Frankly, I really don't mind if slashdot or anyone
else broadcasts that we have an RC tarball available.
Our traffic fee does anyway. RC stuff in /dev/dist/ is not mirrored.
nd
--
On Fri, 7 May 2004, Aaron Bannert wrote:
Why is it bad if people download the RC version and
test it? Frankly, I really don't mind if slashdot or anyone
else broadcasts that we have an RC tarball available.
The problem was that they called it a release, not an RC. I added the
header.html to
I believe that a strict QA process actually hurts the quality
of OSS projects like Apache. We have a gigantic pool of
talented users who would love to give us a hand by testing
our latest and greatest in every contorted way imaginable.
But we're holding out on them. We're saying that we know
FWIW, we're currently only using half of our allocated bandwidth.
If RC distributions become a bandwidth problem, we can think
about mirroring then (wouldn't that be a great problem to have
though?)
-aaron
On May 7, 2004, at 7:05 PM, André Malo wrote:
* Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
I believe that a strict QA process actually hurts the quality
of OSS projects like Apache. We have a gigantic pool of
talented users who would love to give us a hand by testing
I agree, but there is also a protocol to follow. If a user
is interested in testing, they should
On May 7, 2004, at 7:26 PM, Aaron Bannert wrote:
But we're holding out on them. We're saying that we know
better than they do. I don't think we do. Sure, we should be
In a way, we're holding out on them. However, I believe that a couple
of days time to sanity check an RC is IMHO not a bad thing.
28 matches
Mail list logo
