httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Stoddard" <b...@wstoddard.com>
Subject Re: 2.0.28-beta release?
Date Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:20:28 GMT
> >
> > No, there is 2.0.28, period.  There isn't a 2.0.28-alpha and 2.0.28-beta
> > code base.  There is one 2.0.28 codebase.  You could have different versions
> > if the alpha/beta distinction was in the code, but it isn't.  It is only in the
tarball
> > name.
>
> I'm with Ryan. 2.0.28 is exactly that. alpha and beta are *designations*.
> They are not code changes.
>
> 2.0.28 should be buildable from the label. If the CHANGES file was modified
> *outside* of that, then we have a problem.
>
> Ship the damned code. This is a BETA for crying out loud. We don't need to
> weasel patches in. "oh, just this one little fix." Fuck that. Beta means
> bugs. Beta means that we have a list of issues for people to be concerned
> with. Beta means people may have platform-specific problems. Beta is not GA.
>
> +1 on beta. Get a release out the door. Christ almighty... what's it take
> around here? The new release process was intended to get tarballs *out* to
> people. Not to be held up in a bunch of snippy little bug fix this, bug fix
> that. Ship it out with bugs. Call it alpha if it doesn't feel right. Call it
> beta if it feels good.
>
> If an ErrorDocument doesn't work in one case, then tell people "too bad.
> don't do that". If the server dies with a particular subrequest executed
> from some wonky CGI-provided SSI document, then say "get this patch." But we
> gotta get more releases out into the public's hands.
>
> 2.0.16 was crap. Should people really be using that? Not a chance.
>
> Give them 2.0.28.
>
> -g
>

+++++1 :-)

Bill



Mime
View raw message