httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: not in CVS? (was: Re: 2.0.28-beta release?)
Date Wed, 14 Nov 2001 00:12:20 GMT
From: "Ryan Bloom" <rbb@covalent.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:51 PM


> On Tuesday 13 November 2001 03:49 pm, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 04:08:09PM -0500, Greg Ames wrote:
> > >...
> > > As it turns out, the docs/conf/httpd-*.conf files also have post-tag
> > > changes.  So changing/re-tagging them in cvs would be as complex as
> > > changing the code.
> >
> > WHAT? Are you saying that I cannot produce the 2.0.28 tarball from CVS?
> >
> > That isn't right.
> 
> I would go even farther.  That is completely bogus, and if it is true, then
> 2.0.28 must be dropped.  This is why we shouldn't be making so many changes
> to a tag.  Either the tag lives or dies once it has been laid.  Small changes,
> fine.  But we added like four or five bug fixes to 2.0.28.

Guys ... 

... everything that changed was prior to rolling the tarball

... Greg was trying to say that, to flip a patch into httpd-std.conf, he would
have to back out a couple of other changes, commit the 'comment out /error/'
patch, then reapply all the patches.  Which is bogus, since that is what
branches are for.

... all of which is apropos of nothing, since we aren't patching .28

Bill


Mime
View raw message