httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Release Strategy
Date Mon, 05 Feb 2001 14:25:40 GMT
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 08:49:06AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Well, one major problem is that our own internal numbering system
> at present "leaks" into our official release version number...
> Tags with date stamps (APACHE_2_0_0_FEB_02_00) seem like
> good ideas, as anyone has had to deal with "now what date on
> 4-2-STABLE is OK?" knows :)

There is no "leakage" because there is no internal vs external numbering.
The next time we tag/roll, it should be called 2.0.1. The time after that,
it will be 2.0.2. etc.

Our first 2.0 "gold" release might not be until 2.0.10. That is just how it

Yes, we will go through a lot more numbers, but they're cheap :-)

The point is to get away from the notion of 2.0(alpha,beta,your-mom) type
numbering and just start zooming through the numbers. It will make the
process much easier.

Want a comparison? Did you try installing Linux kernel 2.3.1? How about
2.3.2? hehe... I didn't think so. But a number of people *did* install them
somewhere around 2.3.51 (IIRC) as that was relatively stable compared to the
rest of them.

It is very easy to just snap out a release if you don't have to apply the
brain power or restrictions of trying to determine a particular build's
status *before* the tag/roll operation. Just do it, and see what happens.

In this case, we did a tag/roll, and found it was a non-starter because of
some OS/2 breakage. Oh well. We can do it again in just a couple days. No
big overhead, no big deal.

[ there is an open issue for Roy to describe: what is the mechanism for
  sequencing the numbers within CVS and/or the tag/roll process; and your
  implicit question of where to record tag/roll symbols and dates ]


Greg Stein,

View raw message