Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Message-ID: <0a7601c16c81$c9eda420$96c0b0d0@v505>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@covalent.net>
To: <rbb@covalent.net>,
	<dev@httpd.apache.org>
References: <20011113102823.M855@ebuilt.com> <3BF16CE2.AB916EC7@remulak.net>
 <097e01c16c79$95ed8b20$96c0b0d0@v505>
 <20011113200032.F0B7846DFD@koj.rkbloom.net>
Subject: Re: 2.0.28-beta release?
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:21:49 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.

Exactly my the point in the following sentence, which you snipped;

> > BTW - 1.3 had this great little minor rev field that always started at 100.
> > Shame that's gone.

I believe you eliminated this designator, no?

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.

Bill