Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 1367 invoked by uid 500); 14 Nov 2001 00:02:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 1356 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2001 00:02:08 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Ryan Bloom Reply-To: rbb@covalent.net Organization: Covalent Technologies To: dev@httpd.apache.org, Greg Stein Subject: Re: not in CVS? (was: Re: 2.0.28-beta release?) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:51:22 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3] References: <20011113102823.M855@ebuilt.com> <3BF18BB9.85104BA@remulak.net> <20011113154902.C29802@lyra.org> In-Reply-To: <20011113154902.C29802@lyra.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <20011113235122.C9D9646DFD@koj.rkbloom.net> X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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. Ryan ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net --------------------------------------------------------------