httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Ames <grega...@remulak.net>
Subject Re: 2.0.28-beta release?
Date Tue, 13 Nov 2001 21:08:09 GMT
"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> 
> From: "Ryan Bloom" <rbb@covalent.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 2:00 PM
> 
> > On Tuesday 13 November 2001 11:28 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > name.

> I agree, no code twists after alpha tag until we get a decent versioning schema back.

> We know this one isn't GA quality (a much better beta, but no GA.)  So it's pointless
> to fight over bitty fixes once we rolled the alpha tarball.

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.   

How about this?  comment out the ErrorDocument 401 lines in the
docs/conf/httpd-*.conf files, along with a comment line or two saying
that a patch exists, inside the tarballs.  Re-roll, re-sign, rename as
beta, leave cvs alone.  

Otherwise, we probably should document the bug somewhere.  If
"somewhere" is a file inside the tarball, why not just make the change
in the sample configs and be done with it?

Greg

Mime
View raw message