apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ryan Bloom" <...@covalent.net>
Subject RE: Packaging/version question
Date Thu, 20 Jun 2002 20:07:45 GMT
> From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:aaron@clove.org]
> 
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:56:25PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > Hi folks.  For creating binary packages of APR and APR-util, would
it be
> > acceptable to use package versions of "0.9" until an official APR
> > release is made, since I've seen talk of the first release being
"1.0"?
> 
> I move we tag with APR_0_9_0 so that we can maintain consistent
> versioning across 3rd party vendors.

Why do we care about that?  The vendor is responsible for ensuring the
quality of the release if we haven't actually released the software.
Also, we don't try to answer support questions that come from packages
from vendors.  Finally, even if we tag, you won't get all of the vendors
to use that tag.

As a member of a company that ships APR as a part of our products, we
won't use an APR_0_9_0 tag for anything we ship.  If APR goes to 1.0,
then we will move to that, but until then, we will continue to use a
date tag.

I guess my basic thought is that if we are going to tag 0_9_0, then I
would assume that was a beta release, and in that case, we should use an
actual beta tag, not a fake 0.9.0 tag.  If it isn't a beta, then we
shouldn't be tagging it.

Ryan




Mime
View raw message