httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
Date Sun, 03 Feb 2002 16:33:05 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> IMHO, that's not very good.  Ian (somewhat assisted by Aaron and
> myself via IRC) had problems getting the roll right.  That was partly
> due to bad docs.  Partly due to none of us had done this before (I
> don't think any of us were around when the httpd-2.0 RM procedures
> were discussed).  Partly due to the fact that Ian doesn't have a
> daedalus account to post it.  So, I think it needs to be posted
> where *developers* can get at it.
> Ian was hesitant to bump to 2.0.32 because he was under the
> impression that it was not permitted to bump so close to a previous
> tag.  He was the RM, so it was his call.
> In the past, Greg Ames has emailed the tarball (or a private link)
> to people.  I think it'd be better to post it to dev@httpd.  If we
> can't trust our subscribers, then perhaps we need a committers-only
> list where we can privately post it so that we can ensure that we
> don't have a dud tarball, but not seen by lurkers.  -- justin

Unless we have some way of "guaranteing(sp?)" that the tarball in question
isn't available to the rank-and-file (*duck* :) ) and just to those
who understand the situation, then I agree that the risk is reduced.
But placing the tarball anyplace public, means that the cat is out
of the bag. If this means we need a developers only protected area
for tarball testing, then I agree. 

   Jim Jagielski   [|]   [|]
      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
             will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson

View raw message