httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Tagged the tree
Date Mon, 09 Sep 2002 06:49:57 GMT
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 11:21:33PM -0400, wrote:
> Um, the point is we don't want people testing the tags until they have
> been blessed as an alpha.

Hunh? Of course we want people testing the code. I think the problem that
you're trying to avoid is people testing a tag named "APACHE_2_0_41" which
later gets tweaked, re-rolled, and released. *That* would create Suckage.

As far as I'm concerned, *any* input, from developers or users, for a
particular tag is a Big Win all around.

> The point is that the tags are cheap, and there should be more tags than
> tarballs.  If we make it too easy to get the tags, then we won't be able
> to track what people have.  By providing tarballs, we will be going back
> to what didn't work months ago.  If you don't or can't use CVS, then you
> have to wait for the final tag and roll.

Mostly the problem is caused by people shifting tags or by releasing a "pre
release" yet still labelling it as an official release (e.g. 2.0.41).

Personally, I would just advocate shifting to Subversion. Part of our
release process injects the revision number into the header file. Thus, the
tarball always states *precisely* what revision the code came from. The only
question at that point is which *path* was used (e.g. /trunk or
/branches/sander/pre-2.0.41). But I'm sure that we could get that injected,
too, without a problem. Given those two values, then you can precisely
determine the origination of any tarball.

[ note that when you get the file from the repos, it says "dev build" so you
  can tell when somebody used the repos directly, or used a release/snapshot ]


Greg Stein,

View raw message