httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Date Fri, 20 Jul 2001 22:00:56 GMT
Roy,

  Agreed, my bad, sorry.  I conferred with the RM (who has little time for the phone,
never the less email for these few hours) and rbb suggested I push the tags.

I've moved them out of the way.

I'm looking for the 'superscript' to repackage the .tar files.  Then I noted I simply
needed to repackage the changed files.  They should be done within minutes.

We have also dropped the subrevision that was available in apache1.3.  This seems
very wrong to me.  Thoughts?

Bill


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@ebuilt.com>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS


> Hey, what's going on with the retagging?  There exists on developer dist:
> 
>  -rw-r--r--  rbb      httpd  5383847 Jul 19 16:59 httpd-2_0_21-alpha.tar.Z
>  -rw-r--r--  rbb      httpd      466 Jul 19 16:59 httpd-2_0_21-alpha.tar.Z.asc
>  -rw-r--r--  rbb      httpd  3226188 Jul 19 16:59 httpd-2_0_21-alpha.tar.gz
>  -rw-r--r--  rbb      httpd      466 Jul 19 16:59 httpd-2_0_21-alpha.tar.gz.asc
>  -rw-r--r--  wrowe    httpd  4305440 Jul 20 13:20 httpd-2_0_21-alpha.zip
>  -rw-r--r--  wrowe    httpd      477 Jul 20 13:16 httpd-2_0_21-alpha.zip.asc
> 
> which means that there are now two different versions of the source being
> called 2.0.21?  That is bad.
> 
> ....Roy
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message