httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sander Striker" <>
Subject RE: Bumping tags
Date Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:45:47 GMT
> From: David Reid []
> Sent: 30 April 2002 10:31

>>> It looks like you picked up practically all the changes.  Why not just
>>> retag 2.0.37?
> I'm +1 for this...
>> You mean, tag HEAD as 2.0.37?
>> I didn't want to do that since there were changes I didn't want in there.
>> Practically all the changes is just about right ;)
> Well then why are the patches in the tree???

Because someone committed them.  The group hasn't come around dealing with
it (which we see all the time).

> I'm not sure I like the idea of
> tagging and then tagging just some files. Seems like if we haven't got a
> stable HEAD we shouldn't be tagging. We got into this whole business of
> tagging often as a way of avoiding having this sort of thing. Ifw e tagged
> and it wasn't stable, who cares. Just retag when it is and move on...

This is exactly why there is an RM IMO.  If the HEAD were always stable we
wouldn't even need a RM, just running the httpd_roll_release script would be
enough then.

> This seems to be a growing trend and one I think we should stop.

There are only 2 files that have changes since the tag that haven't gone in.
One is because the committer advised against including it (apr/
The second is because there hasn't been group concensus on it, but a flag was
raised.  In the latter (the ab versioning thing), I thought it better not to
burden the public with changing version schemes twice, if that should happen.

> david


View raw message