httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@covalent.net
Subject Re: Release tag names
Date Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:34:58 GMT
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> > chmod 644 CHANGES httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
> > cp /www/dev.apache.org/dist/
> > chmod g+w /www/dev.apache.org/dist/httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
> > 
> > This makes it available for general testing.
> 
> I would prefer that we change to use the tarball name of
> 
>     apache_httpd_2_0_XX_alpha.tar.*
> 
> because it reduces a lot of download headaches if the periods
> are only used for type extensions.

Easily done.  One question, how can we put a label of "alpha" on code that
has never been tested?

> > Once a level has been decided upon, this will need to be re-rolled using
> > the following steps:
> > 
> > Modify the Announcement in httpd-site to taste.
> > 
> > ( cvs co httpd-2.0; cd httpd-2.0 ; cvs co httpd-site/Announcement ; \
> >   cd srclib; cvs co apr apr-util )
> > Modify httpd-2.0/include/ap_release.h
> > cvs tag APACHE_2_0_RELEASE_TAG
> > 	RELEASE_TAG should be b1, a10, 0
> > 
> > ~/httpd-site/httpd_roll_release tag_name logfile_name [user_name]   
> > chmod 644 CHANGES httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
> > cp /www/dev.apache.org/dist/
> > chmod g+w /www/dev.apache.org/dist/httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
> > 
> > For people to test again.
> 
> That's a complete waste of time.  Do this instead:
> 
>     foreach i (gz gz.asc Z Z.asc)
>     mv apache_httpd_2_0_XX_alpha.tar.$i apache_httpd_2_0_XX_beta.tar.$i
>     end
> 
> and then change the website as appropriate.  BTW, shouldn't this be
> under /www/httpd.apache.org/dist/?

That doesn't get the header updated in the tree, it just changes the
tarball name.

> > This is markedly better than the process used to be.  However, the double
> > tag and roll kind of sucks.  My problem is how we get around doing the
> > double tag and roll, but still get the Announcement in the tarball (I
> > could live without this), and update the server-string (I am very much
> > against not doing this).
> 
> Definitely getting better.  We don't need the Announcement in the tarball.
> People who have the tarball already know it exists.

As I said I would be perfectly happy to go without this.

> I still cannot understand why you want the Server string to contain
> anything but the version number.  Please don't tell me that users want
> this -- the only people who ever look at the Server string are marketing
> wonks and software developers.

Fine.  I'm not fighting anymore.  I will modify the script so that the
initial checkout modifies the ap_release.h file and checks it back in
before the tag.  Then we will name the tarball appropriately.  Every
tarball will start out with as an "alpha", because until we test there is
no way it could be better than an alpha.

Ryan

_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Mime
View raw message