apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: Poliicy proposal.
Date Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:58:11 GMT
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:04:16PM -0800, Daniel Rall wrote:
> Ben Hyde <bhyde@pobox.com> writes:
> > rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> >  > On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Ben Hyde wrote:
> >  > >  > APACHE_2_0 or SUBVERSION_X_Y.
> >  > > 
> >  > > I find this weird
> > 
> > still
> [...]
> >  > as easy as possible.
> > 
> > it's weird for tags in apr to named after user's projects.
> [...]
> > meanwhile the apr using code should be paranoid
> > at compile & runtime about what version of apr
> > they are associating with.
> > 
> > sequential fast moving build numbers are good 
> > for this.
> 
> I agree with Ben.  What's the problem with doing another tag of APR
> whenever one of the two projects driving development needs a tag for
> its own build?

APR does not (yet) have its own independent release system. It is not yet
formally released with its own version numbers and labelling.

As a further result, none of the clients are including APR based on a
tarball. They all refer directly to the HEAD and release the APR sources
bundled directly in.

Any tags that the clients are placing on the APR tree are merely commentary.
Something along the lines of "we snapped a release right <here>".

If somebody wants to take a bit of time and turn the APR release mechanics
into a formal system, then we can start adjusting the Apache and SVN release
systems to say "we chose APR 1.0.7 for this release of <FOO>".

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Mime
View raw message