William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Sander Temme wrote:
I think we have three releasable tarballs on our hands. Let's throw
them over the wall.
+1 across the board, some -win32-src.zips (.58 since .57 was scuttled)
and installers are on the way.
Executive decision, anyone who's ever installed http
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I think we have three releasable tarballs on our hands. Let's throw =20
them over the wall.
++1
I couldn't find any other way to parse your message than 1.3.35 is cooked.
So I've moved it over for the mirrors to pick up :)
Note Colm's and Rowe's binaries have the correct
Sander Temme wrote:
OK, let's tally the votes:
httpd-2.2.2
+1 Paul Querna (RM)
+1 Jim Jagielski
+1 Ruediger Pluem
+1 Sander Temme
+1 Brad Nicholes
+1 Colm MacCárthaigh
+1 Mladen Turk
+1 Joe Orton
Non-binding:
+1 Gustavo Lopes
+1 Jorge Schrauwen
+1 Oden Eriksson
+1 Graham Leggett
"The Doctor
Sander Temme wrote:
I think we have three releasable tarballs on our hands. Let's throw
them over the wall.
+1 across the board, some -win32-src.zips (.58 since .57 was scuttled)
and installers are on the way.
There remain issues with VisualStudio 2005 but that's no-nevermind since
we previ
>
> I think we have three releasable tarballs on our hands. Let's throw =20
> them over the wall.
>
++1
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"If you can dodge a wrenc
On Apr 29, 2006, at 8:43 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
Non-binding:
+1 Graham Leggett
Argh... Graham's on the PMC. No idea why I put him in this section,
his vote should be in the section above.
My apologies,
S.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:43:05AM -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
> I think we have three releasable tarballs on our hands. Let's throw
> them over the wall.
2.0.58 has already hit the mirrors, I'll update the website with
announcements once Paul has mailed the 2.2.2 announcements. That seems
closes
OK, let's tally the votes:
httpd-2.2.2
+1 Paul Querna (RM)
+1 Jim Jagielski
+1 Ruediger Pluem
+1 Sander Temme
+1 Brad Nicholes
+1 Colm MacCárthaigh
+1 Mladen Turk
+1 Joe Orton
Non-binding:
+1 Gustavo Lopes
+1 Jorge Schrauwen
+1 Oden Eriksson
+1 Graham Leggett
"The Doctor" reported the ucp is
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 01:49:29PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
What I'd like to propose is 1) wait for the unified announce on Wed night,
2) cease pushing out any 1.3 or 2.0 specific product announcements.
Whatever way we end up cutting this, can we agree to at
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 01:49:29PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> What I'd like to propose is 1) wait for the unified announce on Wed night,
> 2) cease pushing out any 1.3 or 2.0 specific product announcements.
Whatever way we end up cutting this, can we agree to at least let
packagers@httpd
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/24/06, Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tbh, I'm -0.5 on this. It's complex enough as it is trying to get
releases out, and 1.3 hasn't even tagged yet.
My concern is that issuing three announcements in the span of one week
is *very* confusing to our u
On 4/24/06, Sander Temme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about, we lead with 2.2.2, and note in the announcement that 2.0
> and 1.3 releases should be available later this week. This goes out
> to the Slashdots etc. of this world. When 2.0 and 1.3 are ready, we
> can update the website but not sen
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 05:40:45PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> If you feel that strongly about it, veto the code change, and I'll tag
> and roll 2.0.58.
O.k., this is coming anyway :)
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:15:01AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > -1, there's been enough back and forth on this. The current status is
> > that the existing candidate is good for release unless people start
> > reverting their +1's, which so far - has not happened.
>
> As I have stated befor
On Apr 24, 2006, at 9:15 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/24/06, Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tbh, I'm -0.5 on this. It's complex enough as it is trying to get
releases out, and 1.3 hasn't even tagged yet.
My concern is that issuing three announcements in the span of one wee
On 4/24/06, Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tbh, I'm -0.5 on this. It's complex enough as it is trying to get
> releases out, and 1.3 hasn't even tagged yet.
My concern is that issuing three announcements in the span of one week
is *very* confusing to our users. Either 2.0 and 1.3
Sander Temme wrote:
>
> For 1.3, Jim has stated his intention to T&R last Tuesday in order to
> align with the other two releases, but I don't think this has
> happened yet. Jim, would you have time to roll tomorrow? Otherwise I
> may be able to do it, perhaps with a little help from my frie
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:20:59PM -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
> > It looks like the 2.2.2 RC is the closest to being ready for release,
> > with the 72 hour window on www.a.o running out Monday night Pacific.
> > However, I would like to urge holding back the relea
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:20:59PM -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
> It looks like the 2.2.2 RC is the closest to being ready for release,
> with the 72 hour window on www.a.o running out Monday night Pacific.
> However, I would like to urge holding back the release until the
> branches can catch
Folks,
With all of our branches close to release, it strikes me as a good
idea to send out a single release announcement for all three. This
allows us to send as clear as possible a message about what we want
people to use and why. Considering:
1) httpd 2.2.2 is the best version ever and
20 matches
Mail list logo
