quetz-mod_python-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Dumpleton <grah...@dscpl.com.au>
Subject Re: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
Date Sun, 05 Nov 2006 05:57:42 GMT
I want to get the session/cookie changes committed first. Also just  
noticed
that one probably can't do:

   req.handler = None

ie., set it to be unset. I can see I might want this for various  
reasons. :-)

Once I have attended to that, only outstanding issue will be  
documentation
updates for new module importer, but that doesn't need to stop a beta
being done.

Graham

On 05/11/2006, at 8:35 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote:

> It sure feels like we are close thanks to Graham's hard work. I've  
> been doing some testing and it's looking good.
>
> With 3.3.0-dev-20061104 (r471260):
>
> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.3.5
> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.1
>
> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.06, Apache 2.0.55 (worker-mpm), python 2.4.3
> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.10, Apache 2.0.55 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.4c1
>
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.3.5
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.4.4
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.5
>
>
> I'm assuming we are *officially* dropping python 2.2 support, but  
> it does still work as long as you are using the legacy importer.
>
> Also, I wonder if we should bump the apache version required to  
> 2.0.54, or at least note in the docs that we haven't done any  
> testing for version < 2.0.54 (or 2.0.53 as the case may be).
>
> Anyway, are there any burning issues that need to be addressed  
> beyond a couple of documentation tweaks? If not I'll roll a tarball  
> for preliminary testing and if all goes well we can proceed to a  
> beta release cycle in fairly quick order.
>
> Jim

Mime
View raw message