httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From c...@decus.org (Rodent of Unusual Size)
Subject Re: [STATUS] Apache 1.2.2 (Mon 11-Aug-1997 17:27 MET DST)
Date Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:01:24 GMT
>From the fingers of Ralf S. Engelschall flowed the following:
>
>STATUS for Apache 1.2.2 
>=======================
>
>Release Status:
>
>    o source tree was finally tagged with APACHE_1_2_2
>    o final(!) release tarballs (.gz & .Z) were rolled
>    o both release tarballs were signed with PGP
>    o CHANGES and KEYS files for 1.2.2 were prepared for ftp.apache.org
>    o APACHE_1_2_X branch in apache/ repository was changed to 1.2.3-dev.
>    o The final ANNOUNCE message was created.
>    
>    => All of the above stuff for the 1.2.2 release now can be found in
>
>       ftp://dev.apache.org/pub/httpd/dist/apache_1.2.2/
>
>       ** PLEASE FINALLY TEST IT NOW YOURSELF!            **
>       ** IF ALL GOES WELL WE CAN PUT THESE FILES UNDER   **
>       ** ftp://ftp.apache.org/apache/dist/ IN A FEW DAYS **
>       ** AND SEND OUT ANNOUNCE 1.2.2...                  **

    Erm, no.  The tagging, signing, and so on shouldn't happen until
    *after* things are tested and everyone is happy, and practically as
    an atomic step with the rolling of the formal distribution.
    There're no "few days" in the middle.

    Ralf, why don't you send out a status saying what platforms have and
    have not been tested?  I would take as a starting point the list of
    platforms for which 1.2.0 binaries were built.  That way, we all
    know what platforms have been vetted and which remain.  Something
    like:

     FreeBSD: Ben +1
     Linux: Dean +1
     Sequent: ?
     Solaris: ?

    If the general feeling is that this doesn't need as wide testing as
    1.2.0, the list can be pared down.  Once all the `required' systems
    have been tested, we're ready to roll.

    So everyone should test this, and when there's concensus it's ready,
    it gets re-versioned to 1.2.3, re-tagged, re-rolled, re-signed, and
    the version in APACHE_1_2_X bumped to 1.2.4-dev.

    Ben's right, 1.2.2 should be considered "never released."  There are
    a lot of people on this list who may have picked up something from
    httpd/dist that calls itself 1.2.2 but wasn't meant to be let loose
    into the world.  Revisionism says: "1.2.2?  Never existed."

    I will undertake to make this clear in how-to-release.html.

    #ken    :-)}

Mime
View raw message