|
Home > Archive > Apache Mod-Python > July 2006 > release 3.2.10?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Graham Dumpleton 2006-07-16, 7:11 pm |
| Jim Gallacher wrote ..
> Shall we proceed with a 3.2.10 release with the current memory leak
> fixes, or keep digging for more leaks?
>
> Seeing as it's summer for most of us (except for Graham), I get the
> feeling people don't have a lot of free time to spend on mod_python
> right now.
Just because it is winter down here and I'm freezing my butt off doesn't
mean I am any less busy. :-(
> Personally I think we should release 3.2.10 now and make a
> concerted effort to do a code review before a 3.3 release in October /
> November.
I agree we should just get the 3.2.10 release out. We are still going
to have to do the review for 3.3 anyway because some of the internal
structural changes I had to make in some areas to address some
issues have been significant.
Graham
| |
| Jim Gallacher 2006-07-16, 7:11 pm |
| Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Jim Gallacher wrote ..
>
> Just because it is winter down here and I'm freezing my butt off doesn't
> mean I am any less busy. :-(
Oh, I wasn't suggesting you were any less busy - just that folks in the
northern hemisphere may well choose to frolic in the summer sun rather
that hack away at mod_python in their spare time. 
Jim
| |
| Deron Meranda 2006-07-17, 7:13 pm |
| Just want some verification because I haven't seen anything
official looking....
Is 3.2.9 now considered a bad release because of its memory
leaks, and thus will never be released? Hence 3.2.10 will be
the next hopeful stable release after 3.2.8?
| |
| Jim Gallacher 2006-07-17, 7:13 pm |
| Deron Meranda wrote:
> Just want some verification because I haven't seen anything
> official looking....
>
> Is 3.2.9 now considered a bad release because of its memory
> leaks, and thus will never be released?
It's not so much that it's a bad release, but rather it didn't make
sense to officially release 3.2.9 and then turn around and release
3.2.10 a week later. The leak that will be fixed in 3.2.10 is not new in
3.2.9, only newly discovered.
> Hence 3.2.10 will be
> the next hopeful stable release after 3.2.8?
Basically yes, but if you are already using 3.2.9 there is no harm
specific harm.
At any rate, I'll roll a 3.2.10 tarball for testing by the list tonight.
Jim
| |
| Jim Gallacher 2006-07-19, 1:12 am |
| Jim Gallacher wrote:
> Deron Meranda wrote:
>
> It's not so much that it's a bad release, but rather it didn't make
> sense to officially release 3.2.9 and then turn around and release
> 3.2.10 a week later. The leak that will be fixed in 3.2.10 is not new in
> 3.2.9, only newly discovered.
>
>
> Basically yes, but if you are already using 3.2.9 there is no harm
> specific harm.
>
> At any rate, I'll roll a 3.2.10 tarball for testing by the list tonight.
Best laid plans and all that...
For 3.2.9 I called for 2 rounds of testing: one for the release
candidate and one for the final tarball. Do folks here feel that is
necessary for 3.2.10 or should I just jump right to the 3.2.10 final?
That tarball would still be subject to a vote on this list before an
official release. Cutting out the first step will save a few days.
Jim
| |
| Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy 2006-07-19, 1:12 am |
|
I'm +1 on going for 3.2.10.
You in Canada probably have it easier - I think we hit 96F/35C at some
point today or yesterday (I wouldn't know I'm in the office which has AC
sunrise to sunset, I just listen to the news), and unfortunately (or not)
due to work pressures I have no time for anything - no frolicking for me
this summer :-(
Grisha
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote:
> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>
> Oh, I wasn't suggesting you were any less busy - just that folks in the
> northern hemisphere may well choose to frolic in the summer sun rather
> that hack away at mod_python in their spare time.
>
> Jim
>
| |
| Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy 2006-07-19, 1:12 am |
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote:
> For 3.2.9 I called for 2 rounds of testing: one for the release
> candidate and one for the final tarball. Do folks here feel that is
> necessary for 3.2.10 or should I just jump right to the 3.2.10 final?
> That tarball would still be subject to a vote on this list before an
> official release. Cutting out the first step will save a few days.
I think what you term it doesn't matter - if it's voted down, it will be
voted down, be it 3.2.10 RC or 3.2.10 Final (we'll just have to make a
3.2.11 then).
So just go for it :-)
Grisha
| |
| Jorey Bump 2006-07-19, 1:12 am |
| Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
> (we'll just have to make a
> 3.2.11 then).
Let's call that one the Spinal Tap version.
|
|
|
|
|