Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

I'd like to announce and release the 11th. Are we still on track for this? Reports seem to have been good ... Kean

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

> 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

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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 tes

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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 lar

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

Jim Jagielski wrote: Via: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Looks good on SCO OpenServer 5.0.7 and UnixWare 7.1.3. Kean

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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 bes

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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, b

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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.

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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 joi

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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:

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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 better

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

* 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 -- Win

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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, an

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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 mailto:

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

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: . S. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.temme.net/sander/ PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

* 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 | Northfield Linux U

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

* 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, #

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

The URL has been posted on slashdot :-( Joshua.

Re: Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

Thumbs up on; - Red Hat Linux 7.2, 7.3, 8.0, & 9.0 - Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1 & 3.0 - Fedora Core 1 Linux - Slackware Linux 8.1, 9.0, 9.1, & -current Thanks. -- Chip Cuccio| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> NORLUG VP and Sysadmin |

Apache 1.3.31 RC Tarballs available

Via: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ I'd like to announce and release the 11th.