httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralf S. Engelschall" <...@engelschall.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-devsite how-to-release.html
Date Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:52:50 GMT

In article <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980414095933.23554E-100000@valis.worldgate.com> you wrote:
> On 14 Apr 1998 rse@hyperreal.org wrote:

>[..]
>>   +     <CODE><STRONG>$ cp apache_1.X.Y/src/CHANGES .</STRONG></CODE>
>>   +<P>
>>   +<LI> Cleanup:<BR>
>>   +     <CODE><STRONG>$ rm -rf apache_1.X.Y</STRONG></CODE>
>>   +<P>

> Note that this is not the right thing to do for 1.2.x, since it goes 
> to CHANGES.1.2.

Not quite correct. As I see it, the current CHANGES is the complete CHANGES.
The CHANGES.1.2 is only the 1.2 stuff from CHANGES and CHANGES.1.3 is only the
1.3 stuff from CHANGES.  So just copying CHANGES to CHANGES.1.2 is not the
solution and the reason why I only added this entry for CHANGES.

>>   +<LI> cd back into the CVS tree location.<BR>
>>   +     <CODE><STRONG>$ cd apache-1.X</STRONG></CODE>

> Didn't you already tell them to remove it before?  I'm not sure it is 
> necessary to tell people how to use rm...

First, they removed the exported apache_1.X.Y tree, the apache-1.X tree is the
CVS tree location as said above. These are two different things! Second, it is
bogus on the one hand to mention every step including every "cp" and "cd" but
on the other hand leave out "rm"s IMHO. I wanted a complete list.

>>   +     <CODE><STRONG>$ cd /pub/apache/</STRONG></CODE><BR>
>>   +     <CODE><STRONG>$ cvs update index.html</STRONG></CODE><BR>
>>   +     <CODE><STRONG>$ cvs update dist/index.html</STRONG></CODE>

> It is worth adding a umask 002 in there.

Thanks for the hint, good point.

>>   +     <CODE><STRONG>$ cd dist</STRONG></CODE><BR>
>>   +     <CODE><STRONG>$ gunzip &lt;apache_1.X.Y.tar.gz | tar xvf
-</STRONG></CODE>

> I'm still not sure this is a good idea.  I don't see that we gain 
> that much, we add a whole bunch of files for mirrors to pick up
> (remember, a whole bunch of files can be a pain to transfer) and
> we have the potential to really confuse people.  Some people already
> have trouble figuring out the name of the httpd binary in binary 
> distributions.  

But there is no other resource available through which people can access parts
of the source tree. And as Martin said in the other thread, the cvsweb.cgi is
not a good alternative, because it lacks rev=HEAD, it uses too long URLs and
it has a great CPU impact. So, what alternative do you suggest, Marc?

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com

Mime
View raw message