httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Padwa, Daniel" <>
Subject RE: 2.0.28-beta release?
Date Wed, 14 Nov 2001 02:27:27 GMT
If 2.0.28 is good for beta except for a few files, why not just check out
2.0.28, update the files you want, and then re-roll that as 2.0.29?   Branch
if necessary to get only the changes you want.

The whole versioning scheme as currently spec'd doesn't really make sense if
you can't do that.   Does a re-roll require pulling all files at HEAD?

That said - I'd cast my (not-counted) vote for just making 2.0.28 beta.
Maybe to be followed up by another beta before year-end?   Pretty please?

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Bloom []
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:01 PM
To:; William A. Rowe, Jr.
Subject: Re: 2.0.28-beta release?

On Tuesday 13 November 2001 11:28 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> From: "Greg Ames" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:56 PM
> > Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > I know that we can't touch the 2.0.28-alpha tarball, but I seem
> > > to recall someone saying we could touch the next-level tarball
> > > (i.e. -beta).
> >
> > hmmmm...that's an interesting idea.  I like it!  I would bump the tag on
> > that file, do the PITA dance with the CHANGES file, probably do a little
> > testing, re-roll, rename the tarballs as beta.  What do others think?  I
> > could note that this happened in the CHANGES file since I have to mess
> > with it anyway.
> I'd suggest that you checkout on APACHE-2_0_28, tag as APACHE-2_0_28_ALPHA
> for historical reasons, then we can add APACHE-2_0_28_BETA, etc.

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


Ryan Bloom
Covalent Technologies

View raw message