Re: Most likely 1.3 1st then 2.x
On Aug 24, 2007, at 7:47 PM, Sander Temme wrote: Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 08/24/2007 02:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: To be honest, I can't see holding off the 1.3 release any longer while we're waiting on APR as well as stuff is being added to the 2.x trees... It's kind of embarrassing. +1. As far as I understand this downgrade scenario is one of the reasons why we aim to release all stable branches at the same point of time. It might help to keep the release quiet: put the code out there and update the page, but keep it off the front page and out of the public channels. We can even do the same for 2.0.x once we have our regression fixed, and then make a splash for all three when 2.2.x is done. This is all well and good, except, to be honest, how confident are we that 2.x will be released any time soon? If they were, I'd say wait and release/announce all 3 together. We've pushed back the releases at least 3 times already; 1.3 is ready; 2.0 and 2.2 aren't, yet, and we have no real idea when then will be. Like I said, I can't see keeping 1.3.38 from our 1.3 users simply because 2.x isn't ready
Most likely 1.3 1st then 2.x
To be honest, I can't see holding off the 1.3 release any longer while we're waiting on APR as well as stuff is being added to the 2.x trees... It's kind of embarrassing. So even though I have most of the files setup for triple release, I think next week I'll just release 1.3 and we can the release 2.x when ready and not continue to hold our 1.3 users hostage.
Re: Most likely 1.3 1st then 2.x
On 08/24/2007 02:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: To be honest, I can't see holding off the 1.3 release any longer while we're waiting on APR as well as stuff is being added to the 2.x trees... It's kind of embarrassing. So even though I have most of the files setup for triple release, I think next week I'll just release 1.3 and we can the release 2.x when ready and not continue to hold our 1.3 users hostage. +1. I think the number of people going back to 1.3 from 2.0 / 2.2 because this 1.3 release is newer than the latest 2.0 / 2.2 release is comparable low. As far as I understand this downgrade scenario is one of the reasons why we aim to release all stable branches at the same point of time. Regards Rüdiger
Re: Most likely 1.3 1st then 2.x
Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 08/24/2007 02:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: To be honest, I can't see holding off the 1.3 release any longer while we're waiting on APR as well as stuff is being added to the 2.x trees... It's kind of embarrassing. +1. As far as I understand this downgrade scenario is one of the reasons why we aim to release all stable branches at the same point of time. It might help to keep the release quiet: put the code out there and update the page, but keep it off the front page and out of the public channels. We can even do the same for 2.0.x once we have our regression fixed, and then make a splash for all three when 2.2.x is done. S. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Most likely 1.3 1st then 2.x
Sander Temme wrote: We can even do the same for 2.0.x once we have our regression fixed, and then make a splash for all three when 2.2.x is done. 2.0 and 2.2 both have piped log issues. For 2.0 this is slightly more critical, we still invoke the log pipe app directly, and then pid_kill the thing on plog teardown. This means there is a lag between now-dead logger and new open_logs hook, which is especially uncool. On 2.2 it's not quite so bad, since we pid_kill bin/sh leaving bin/sh's invoked process running. r569535 doesn't quite clean on either 2.0 or 2.2, so I'll post up the link a bit later to tweaked patches.
