> On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 23:15 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> As you may be able to tell from my latest commits we are fast heading >> towards 3.1.0.1. >> >> Now rolling a new snapshot for the updated Release Notes and ChangeLog. >> >> Administrative stuff still needed: >> >> * check and update ./configure setting release notes > >> * Better description (sect 4) on: >> SslBump >> eCAP >> Loadable modules > > I can work on the above three subitems. > >> .. .others? > >> * second opinion on sect 4 version renumbering description. Does my >> description of the 3.1.* numbering match everyones understanding of it? >> >> * Vote: should we old 3.1.0.1 for ntlm_auth helper rename? >> * Vote: should we hold 3.1.0.1 for SourceLayout commits? > > I do not have a strong preference. If nobody does, you should release > without waiting if you think there are already important features/fixes > that folks running 3.1 would benefit from. > >> * Can anyone port the COSS stability stuff in time for 3.1 stable? >> Or should we disable it now for 3.1 as done for 3.0? > > I may be able to work on this, but I will not know for sure for another > week or so.
Okay. Easy enough to re-enable when worked on. I'll get everything else done first then to give you time. If I don't hear from you meanwhile I'll disable it just prior to rolling. > >> * Are there any other possible blockers for 3.1.0.1 known? > > IMO, if current 3.1 state is noticeably better than 3.1.0.0, then it is > OK to release 3.1.0.1 provided you have the time to do the release. > Unpolished features or isolated bugs are expected in these releases. We don't have a 3.1.0.0 officially. Just a rolling series of snapshots. > >> Mark/Alex: what are the chances of a RFC2616 compliance scan shortly >> after the package actually rolls? > > Mark, do you need anything from me to run the tests and analyze the > results? Do you have the time to do that? > Thanks Amos
