httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cliff Woolley <>
Subject Re: 2.0.26?
Date Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:25:33 GMT
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> 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.

I can see where that would be a problem.

> 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.

Okay, that's a reasonable approach.  I didn't see the point last time, but
now I do.  +1.  I'll do it that way this time.

> 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.

That's a good point, one we shouldn't forget.  :)


   Cliff Woolley
   Charlottesville, VA

View raw message