Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-ID: <030501c140ba$d2aa5ec0$96c0b0d0@roweclan.net>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.32.0109182255340.11019-100000@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: Q1: Rollup Release Format
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 22:25:59 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

To quote our mantra;

be forgiving of the input, strict in the output ;)

If the user 'asks' for a rollup, they aught to get a complete package,
unless it is _clearly_ labeled as an incremental.

I'm leaning, more and more, to offer both options, -complete (no
questions asked, download nothing more) and -all-extras (well, no
base, but we said, it's all the extras, pop3/mbox/proxy/ldap, at
least those quantified as of 'date' as 'gold'.)

All these packages (rollups) must contain the yyyymmdd tag for
clarity, what is 'gold' on a given day will change wrt a given
release of 'core'.

Bill


From: "Cliff Woolley" <cliffwoolley@yahoo.com>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 10:03 PM
Subject: RE: Q1: Rollup Release Format


> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:
> 
> > Option B seems to be reasonable to me..
> > - apache-lite     - containing httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util and
> > - apache-complete - containing lite(?) + http-proxy + http-ldap
> 
> Just to be clear, Option A assumes the pre-existence of what you call
> "apache-lite".  The deal with the rollup release was always that the httpd
> RM could roll a release of the httpd-2.0/apr/apr-util tree without
> worrying about the extra modules like proxy etc.  Once this "lite" version
> is ready to release, then the rollup team comes along behind and does the
> rollup version.
> 
> Option A says that the rollup version contains everything including the
> lite version, ie, it's a complete server+modules package.
> 
> Option B says that the rollup version does NOT include the lite version,
> ie it is ONLY the modules.
> 
> So when you say "containing lite(?)", that's really two different options.
> (As I mentioned earlier, my personal preference is Option A.)
> 
> --Cliff
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>    Cliff Woolley
>    cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
>    Charlottesville, VA
> 
> 
> 
>