httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
Date Mon, 04 Feb 2002 05:48:00 GMT
From: "Ryan Bloom" <rbb@covalent.net>
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 httpd.apache.org/dev is what I'll follow, these discussions are SO
utterly nonproductive.  Heck - aren't we here 'cause we like to code?

Bill



Mime
View raw message