Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 60737 invoked by uid 500); 19 Sep 2001 21:47:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 60700 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2001 21:47:25 -0000 Message-ID: <049c01c14154$bd1d0ae0$93c0b0d0@roweclan.net> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." To: , "Greg Stein" References: <3BA8FE20.62027B26@sharp.fm> <20010919143536.X4050@lyra.org> Subject: Re: Q1: Rollup Release Format - Score So Far... Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 16:47:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N From: "Greg Stein" Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 4:35 PM > On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 04:32:12PM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote: > > > But I think we also have concensus that the name shouldn't be "apache". > > "apache-httpd-2.x.x.tar.gz" seems better. > > Agreed. That was my take on things, we made it *really* clear that this can't be ambigious. > I am +0 on httpd-2... and +1 on apache-httpd-2... > > btw, no dates in those either (a suggestion from otherbill). The version > number tells us what we need to know. Not if a module has released an incremental bugfix/securityfix between major core httpd releases, it doesn't.