Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:14:54 -0800
From: Aaron Bannert <aaron@clove.org>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: not in CVS? (was: Re: 2.0.28-beta release?)
Message-ID: <20011113161454.F2029@clove.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Aaron Bannert <aaron@clove.org>, dev@httpd.apache.org
References: <20011113102823.M855@ebuilt.com> <3BF18BB9.85104BA@remulak.net>
 <20011113154902.C29802@lyra.org> <20011113235122.C9D9646DFD@koj.rkbloom.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20011113235122.C9D9646DFD@koj.rkbloom.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i

On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 03:51:22PM -0800, 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.  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.

Woah hold on...That's not what he's saying. The way I read that was
he wanted to simply apply the httpd-std.conf changes and bump the
tag, but since there have been other fixes since the the tag that
weren't intended to be included in 2.0.28, it wouldn't be feasible.

-aaron