Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 88086 invoked by uid 500); 6 Feb 2001 12:56:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 88071 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 12:56:47 -0000 From: Jim Jagielski Message-Id: <200102061256.HAA28023@devsys.jaguNET.com> Subject: Re: Release Strategy To: new-httpd@apache.org Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:56:43 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: jim@jaguNET.com In-Reply-To: <20010205152013.A1041@waka.ebuilt.net> from "Roy T. Fielding" at Feb 05, 2001 03:20:13 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > The only place that "alpha", "beta", "gold", etc., would appear is in > the name of the tarball file and the description on our site. > It cannot appear anywhere in the source code. I do not want it to > appear in the Server version string, since that requires changing > the tarball after testing. > I don't think that's wise at all... The "quality" or "level" of the build is just as important as the version number. Having an alpha or beta quality code "look" like a release in the one area most seen by the outside world (the Server version string) is just shortsited IMO and just asking for trouble and confusion. -- =========================================================================== 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."