httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dirk-Willem van Gulik <>
Subject Re: 1.3.8: One more bug...
Date Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:26:40 GMT

On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> > 
> > Give the release canditate's -0, -1, -2 sort-a sequence numbers. They are
> > candidates, nothing more. 
> > 
> > That gets around the entire labeling exersise. I really dislike just
> > ditching a 1.3.x entirely because we find a fault in a procedure which is
> > designed to find.. faults.
> > 
> There was some discussion about this before, calling the tarball
> something like 1.3.x-fc1, or whatever, do avoid just this concern.
> It's closer to what's done in that nasty "outside world" area.

> The problem is that we tag before we submit the tarball to a full-
> blown "universal" test, and so if any problems are discovered, well,
> then the tag gets in the way.
That is why we should treat that as a fork in the tree, a branch. And I
would even advocate having that branch sitting privately on the RM's
machine; with only access to it by sending the RM an email with a pretty
please. I.e very restrained access.


View raw message