W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > April 2004

Re: [checklink] Preparing for 3.9.3

From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:40:06 +0300
To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Cc: public-qa-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <1082151606.5301.77.camel@bobcat.mine.nu>

On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 01:38, olivier Thereaux wrote:

> Haven't got time to look yet but I suppose from what you're saying that 
> 5.79 fixes the file: redirect bug, which is good. That said, are we 
> sure it's a good candidate (i.e stable enough) to put into production?
> 
> I realize that updating lwp is starting to be important and urgent, I 
> just would not want to regret any hasty move.

Understood and agreed.  But all the development work I'm doing is with
5.79 (and I've reviewed quite a bit of the current LWP codebase lately,
it should be in good shape), qa-dev currently has 5.76 and v.w.o has
5.64.  As long as the production version will be using something that we
test 3.9.3 with, it's fine with me.  Well, as long as it's newer than
5.60, excluding 5.76 ;)

Updating the system LWP on v.w.o would of course need the validator to
be tested with the new one as well.  But if need be, one or even both of
{validator,checklink} can be using their "own" LWP installation,
basically it's just a matter of unpacking the LWP dist tarball, doing a
SetEnv to the libwww-perl-*/lib dir in Apache's config for the relevant
script, and removing the -T flag from the CGI's perl shebang.  Note, I'm
not advocating this, just pointing it out as a possibility just in
case...
Received on Friday, 16 April 2004 17:57:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:44 GMT