apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "'Aaron Bannert'" <aa...@clove.org>
Subject Re: Packaging/version question
Date Thu, 20 Jun 2002 20:17:01 GMT
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:07:45PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:aaron@clove.org]
> > 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.

I don't know anything about implied support on releases or the definition
of what a beta release of APR might be, but I do know that other products
which depend on APR are being shipped, and they need a version number
to point at. I'd prefer that this version number bear some significance
in terms of stability, given our track record on the HTTPD project
I don't see us making a solid 1.0 release of APR for a few more months.
I'd rather have us consider marking what we have as a milestone
(it has been fairly stable lately).

> 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.

I guess that depends on how we want to define "beta" for APR releases.

-aaron

Mime
View raw message