Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-apreq-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 44495 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2009 16:42:10 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Jan 2009 16:42:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 86098 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jan 2009 16:42:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-apreq-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 85969 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jan 2009 16:42:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact apreq-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 85960 invoked by uid 99); 8 Jan 2009 16:42:10 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:42:10 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [64.202.165.181] (HELO smtpauth01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net) (64.202.165.181) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:42:01 +0000 Received: (qmail 25784 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2009 16:41:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (76.252.112.72) by smtpauth01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.181) with ESMTP; 08 Jan 2009 16:41:37 -0000 Message-ID: <49662CBF.5060501@rowe-clan.net> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:41:35 -0600 From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081119) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Issac Goldstand CC: Joe Schaefer , Issac Goldstand , APREQ List Subject: Re: [VOTE] Unify release SVN tag, SVN branch and dating policy for 1.x and trunk References: <49194D56.4030604@beamartyr.net> <742027.45655.qm@web54410.mail.yahoo.com> <49659895.1070205@beamartyr.net> In-Reply-To: <49659895.1070205@beamartyr.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Issac Goldstand wrote: >> > That sounds right and more in line with the normal httpd release > procedure - that would mean doing (4) before (1) and leaving the rest > as-is. Pretty much, yup. The confusion reigns when we aren't sure if a user is complaining about 1.34-dev, 1.34-RC1, 1.34-RC2 or 1.34-Gold. So this gives us a very simple binary question (did you grab from SVN or take a release al la CPAN) to decide if the user is running what we expected. And as folks have hinted, version no's are cheap :)