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 Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:35:47 GMT
From: "Joshua Slive" <joshua@slive.ca>
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 4:36 PM


> > From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:rbb@covalent.net]
> 
> > My point is that I disagree with that.  We have been bumping tags on
> > files when releasing 2.0 since 2.0.16, and we aren't even talking about
> > bumping a tag here.  We are just talking about rolling the tarball on a
> > different machine than was originally used.  The code didn't change
> > between the original tarball and the second, just the machine used to do
> > the roll.

++1... this shouldn't be a huge hangup.  But Josh has a point...

> The justification for not doing this is that the 2.0.31 tarball is now
> public (officially or not).  Now if we reroll a new tarball and someone
> comes to us and says "I'm having a problem with 2.0.31", we will never be
> able to know exactly what they are using.  Even just the simple matter of
> creating a .tar.gz can create big differences between distributions, let
> alone the question of buildconf.

Except that "What package did you download" isn't an unreasonable question.

"Oh, I'm not sure, I renamed it to fsukup.tar.gz" isn't an acceptable answer.

That's why we have kicked around the idea of rolling these into the -beta ...
sure the -alpha package had a few packaging issues.  They are resolved, life
rolls on.

> Suggestion: Tag 2.0.32 at exactly the same place as 2.0.31 (possibly with a
> bump for the netware stuff) roll a new tarball with that version, and
> release that.

That is quite a waste for build-issues on an alpha.


Mime
View raw message