Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
Günter, Just so that everyone is on the same page, 2.1.0 will be an -alpha. If and when we think we are about done with post 2.0 development, we will finally release a 2.1.x-beta. That will become the codebase (after an iteration or few) of the Apache 2.2 release. We are moving twords the tried-and-true release semantics of Perl, Linux kernels, and many other open source projects. Probably the number one issue would be APR 1.0-alpha acceptance. Once we set 1.0 in stone, there will be little distracting movement on that side of module development - so that Apache 2.1 third party module developers can really get their feet wet and demand the changes they need to see in 2.2 before we declare it golden and start this all over again :) Bill At 09:32 AM 1/8/2004, Günter Knauf wrote: Hi all, now we have already tagged for two times, tested, and nothing happened - no 2.1.0 release is out yet. What's about a new third try with a following release this time??? I really wish we could have 2.1 out so that the users get a version number they can refer to; that makes bug reports a lot easier I see on my hosts downloads that there is enough interest now for 2.1 PLEASE LET US PUT OUT A FIRST 2.1 RELEASE !!! thanks, Guenter.
Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
Hi Bill, thanks for your reply! Just so that everyone is on the same page, 2.1.0 will be an -alpha. If sure - I'm aware of this (and it's on my site too); but nevertheless there are now a lot of new things in 2.1-dev which people would already like to play with and when we think we are about done with post 2.0 development, we will finally release a 2.1.x-beta. That will become the codebase (after an iteration or few) of the Apache 2.2 release. We are moving twords the tried-and-true release semantics of Perl, Linux kernels, and many other open source projects. Probably the number one issue would be APR 1.0-alpha acceptance. Once we set 1.0 in stone, there will be little distracting movement on that side of module development - so that Apache 2.1 third party module developers can really get their feet wet and demand the changes they need to see in 2.2 before we declare it golden and start this all over again :) do you still expect massive changes with APR 1.0 ? thanks, Guenter.
Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
At 04:51 PM 1/13/2004, Günter Knauf wrote: do you still expect massive changes with APR 1.0 ? I have the sense that folks want to see: * platform neutral apr_poll() that works on apr_file_t's as well, since so many daemons and other applications will require this. Non trivial - but we may just end up with a sleep(100 /*ms*/) poll test_files loop. Or we may have to use local socket pairs as the fallback daemon pipe mechanism. * completed documentation (Sander Temme has put in alot of effort at cleaning up the doxygen results, kudos!) I'm also feeling that running as-a-daemon should mostly be the effort of APR itself, so that the issues between normal daemons, Win32 services, and the odd unix dameon control environments are totally flattened out to be nearly platform-neutral. All that said, nothing should stop us from beginning 1.0-alphas (caviat: contents may settle during shipment) and getting some feedback on this front, too. But if these are rolled, I would really feel warmer and fuzzier with calling them APR 0.9.9, or something that will restrict them from ever being used with any app build for APR 1.0 release. Bill
what about 2.1.0 ?????
Hi all, now we have already tagged for two times, tested, and nothing happened - no 2.1.0 release is out yet. What's about a new third try with a following release this time??? I really wish we could have 2.1 out so that the users get a version number they can refer to; that makes bug reports a lot easier I see on my hosts downloads that there is enough interest now for 2.1 PLEASE LET US PUT OUT A FIRST 2.1 RELEASE !!! thanks, Guenter.
