httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: I just have to ask
Date Sun, 11 Mar 2001 09:29:00 GMT

In a message dated 01-03-11 03:40:10 EST, Chuck writes.

> Isn't it a little misleading to be referring to pre-beta code as
> 2.0.14 instead of 2.0.[ab]14 or 2.0.0 prebeta build 14 or something?
> Especially since our current offering is 1.3.19?
> Maybe it's me.

It's you.

I think you missed the entire discussion that led to the current 
CVS approach.

A number is number is a number.
It doesn't 'mean' anything.
It is just something that CVS needs to keep track of the code.

The 'actual' status of any particular revision number of Apache is
something that is decided by the group and the public.

If someone wants to download something that group itself has
agreed is an 'Alpha' and it works perfectly for them under all
circumstances then for all intents and purposes... for 'them'
it is a 'release'.

When the group itself is satisfied that something is GA quality
then it can make a 'release' announcement and say which 
version number is considered 'release' quality.

Until the announcements go out.. nothing is 'official'.

People were getting too wrapped up ( and lost ) in this
'are we beta yet?' discussion and launching into the philosophy
of what the heck 'beta' is supposed to actually mean and
Roy Fielding stepped in and put the hammer down.

If the group wants to do something like what SQUID does
( Add NAMES after version numbers ) then that will now
work too ( E.g. 2.0.23-BETA or 2.0.31-RELEASE ) but
the numbers are just build numbers.

The code is the code. It is what it is.

The 'labels' will ALWAYS actually be just a matter of 'opinion', 
when it comes right down to it.

Kevin Kiley

View raw message