httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
Date Mon, 04 Feb 2002 05:48:00 GMT
From: "Ryan Bloom" <>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 1:12 PM

> No that isn't what this is based on.  It is based on the fact that
> tagging the tree with two different versions within two days discourages
> people from testing.  If I roll a release every few days, why should
> anybody test them, because they know that another release will be made,
> which will obsolete what they are testing.

++1.  If we are going to do that to testers, let's just have every-six-hour
tarballs sitting out for download in perpetuity.

Joe:  Hey, which apache should I download?

Mike: Well, as long as you are on Solaris, that 3 Mar 2003 tarball worked
      really well, but you might want to go back to the 2nd if you are trying
      to build on Linux - that one didn't work for me.

Roy was dead on... You tag infreqently enough that folks respect that some
good thought went into releasing that version.  Build snafus are negligable,
and really not worth arguing over - just fix em and release.

However, Ryan, your change that dropped out the supplimental strings (actually
assigning server-strings of -alpha/-beta/-gold, and the two digit subversion)
really hosed our ability to assure a user that yea - that is the -alpha, and
you really needed the -beta before you can build on, say, Netware.

And _not_ to Ryan;

Anywho - this has been argued to death.  Whatever the roll 'n release docs
say on is what I'll follow, these discussions are SO
utterly nonproductive.  Heck - aren't we here 'cause we like to code?


View raw message