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 Re: [VOTE] Release apr-0.9.19 and/or apr-util-0.9.18
Date Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:40:02 GMT
On 10/11/2010 12:28 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2010 12:14 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>> On 11.10.2010 18:56, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Sander Temme<sander@temme.net>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> [-1]  Release apr-util 0.9.18 as GA
>>>>
>>>> traveling this week, but grabbed necessary items for re-roll when I
>>>> saw this; will await a conclusion and re-T&R
>>>
>>> Another observation: previous apr(-util) releases contained .mak and .dep files
in the
>>> win32-src zips.
>>>
>>> Those are not contained this time. A fix for this would probably not need a new
tag but a
>>> reroll, but I haven't looked at the rolling scripts.
>>
>> Those are rolled by hand, unlike apr 1.3 and onwards.  Since 0.9.19 will
>> very likely be the 'last' again, I didn't see much reason to check them
>> in.  But I'm happy to prepare -win32-src.zip (0.9.19 apr on its way) and
>> then check in the build files for unexpected future tags.
> 
> Ouch...  We can just fix release.sh to omit the Windows artifacts if
> release < 1.3.

Well, if you ignore the generated .zip files this pass, as I mention I'll check
those in.  More problematic would be a 2.0-alpha t&r, which isn't ready (yet)
for a .mak file checkin ... since it's still a moving target.

The idea behind adding .mak/.dsp for win32 after the .0 release is that we have
minimal noise in svn, the experience with apache 1.3.9+ was, uhm, unpleasant.



Mime
View raw message