httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <>
Subject Re: 2.0.26?
Date Thu, 30 Aug 2001 22:14:57 GMT
> Not really. The process Cliff and I outlined is really aimed at getting -a- stable release
> available. The process will take at least 2 days to go through but shouldn't take more
> than maybe 4 days total. If we use this process AND use your suggestions to not commit
> huge chunks of untested code during our 'stabilization period' I am confident we can
> stable releases out on almost every try. We can control the release of tarballs to the
> test community.

The only BIG problem I had with Cliff's process of retagging individual
files is that by the time he and OtherBill were finished I had no clue
what was in the actual release version.

How about if we go to the suggestion I posted at the time?  Tag what is
believed to be good as APACHE_GOOD, have people check that out as a branch
and bring it up to snuff on platforms as needed, then bump the version and
retag the APACHE_GOOD revisions as APACHE_2_0_XX, and finally merge that
version back into HEAD.  That way HEAD can keep going without bounds and
the folks who need a polished release without the latest big fixes can
focus their efforts on the mini-branch.

Personally, as much as I dislike the current lack of a release tarball,
I am more pleased with the rate at which *significant* problems are being
found and fixed in 2.0.  In my opinion, the reason 2.0 doesn't have a good
beta release is because it simply has not been ready for beta release -- the
big fixes we have been making lately have vastly improved it over what
it was two months ago.


View raw message