httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Ames <grega...@remulak.net>
Subject Re: not in CVS? (was: Re: 2.0.28-beta release?)
Date Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:01:18 GMT
Cliff Woolley wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Whoa nelly... I interpreted GregA's statement to mean that there have been
> commits to httpd-*.conf in 2.0.29-dev (which is in fact the case) which
> means it's non-trivial to commit a single-line change and bump the tag
> (you either have to revert, retag, and recommit or branch, retag, and
> merge).

Yeah, what Cliff said.  

What I was trying to get across was that it is just as complex to bump
config file fixes in CVS as it is to bump code fixes at this point, if
we were going to allow any changes into the tarballs between alpha and
beta.  The consensus appears to be that the tarballs don't change except
in name.

The tarballs are recreatable from CVS, assuming you use the
httpd_roll_release script and do the renames.

Greg

Mime
View raw message