httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: release method for 2.0
Date Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:15:00 GMT
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
> I want to change the way we are numbering and producing releases.
> We got onto a wrong track after the 0.8 releases and have been
> constipated ever since.  I want to go back to producing a version
> every week or two (when the tree is not in mid-change) and decide
> after the fact what quality to assign it:
> 
>    snap  --  just a CVS snapshot, may not compile
>    alpha --  packaged release that is believed to compile
>              but hasn't been tested under production conditions
>    beta  --  packaged release that is known to compile on at
>              least three platforms and believed to be ready
>              for production use
> 
>    current:  public release of latest code
>    stable:   public release of best code
> 
> What it requires is a change to the way we mark the version in the
> source (something I was going to do anyway), a scripted release
> process, and my time to do the RM stuff until we get it back to
> a consisent process.
> 
> Are there any objections to me doing the above?
> 

certainly such a major change should require some thought and
debate rather than "any objections"...

We should also, IMO, make better use of CVS, and things like
release candidates, etc... The fact that after a tag we need to
bump up for any changes is bogus. So yeah, I'm all for a
better use of the tools at our disposal.

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
          "Casanova will have many weapons; To beat him you will
              have to have more than forks and flatulence."

Mime
View raw message