apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject [discuss] Releasing alpha-/beta- APR candidates
Date Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:02:01 GMT
[Different discussion, switching thread subjects]

Guenter Knauf wrote:
> I think we need a way to distribute alpha releases, just same as what we
> do with httpd.

+1; That was a serious omission in our versioning policy.  I raised the
same question a long time back, and was basically told "not a consideration",
see the archives.  If memory serves, Greg was the first to forcefully
respond that there isn't such a mechanism, by-design.

> Now what I'm trying to understand is how we really break machines of
> alpha testers?

I guess I don't understand your comments in the context of this discussion.
People test alpha and beta candidates all the time, ultimately in context
of a development machine deployment, staging server, etc etc.  It's called
living on the bleeding edge.

> Second how do we break things, and what do we break?
> The installed libraries are most likely not a problem since they have a
> new so name, so nothing links against them. 

So are you addressing alpha-/beta- of new major revs only?  Not minor
revisions, e.g. a 2.1.0-alpha?

> The installed headers are
> more a problem, and we should think of a way to workaround this. Isnt it
> possible to use versioned directories like 'apr-1.4' instead of just
> 'apr'? Then we could probably have more than one installed apr version
> side by side ...

That implies we should simply dissolve our versioning contract, something
I'd already considered putting up for a vote.  But we typically change
things incrementally; this is where I'm attempting to redirect the spirit
of disagreement into productive dialog about what should change.

> Another thing could be to default to static libraries, and only build
> shared ones if explicitly specified as argument to configure ...

Possible, but necessary?  Or are you speaking only with reference to such
alpha- and beta- candidates?  And do people end up with a static apr
linked to static crypto, that wouldn't pick up security patches such as
the current TLS protocol rework?




Mime
View raw message