Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 71046 invoked by uid 500); 3 Feb 2002 16:41:14 -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 71033 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2002 16:41:14 -0000 From: "Joshua Slive" To: Subject: RE: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:44:56 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20020203162546.GH23760@ebuilt.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com] > 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. This argument has been had befor (ad naseum), but... This is based on the false premise that version numbers are scarce. Tagging and rolling are fairly easy operations (with the fancy new script). Arguing for days about exactly what changes should justify a new tag is difficult. Joshua.