httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brad Nicholes" <BNICHO...@novell.com>
Subject Re: 2.1.1 tarballs posted...
Date Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:28:27 GMT
   Since this is alpha level, should the server signature contain
"-alpha" so that users don't get this confused with an actual release? 
Once I build binaries for NetWare, the only thing that will indicate
that this is an alpha is the name of the .zip file.  It would be less
confusing if the binaries also showed that it is an alpha.

Index: ap_release.h
===================================================================
--- ap_release.h	(revision 105990)
+++ ap_release.h	(working copy)
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
 #define AP_SERVER_MAJORVERSION_NUMBER 2
 #define AP_SERVER_MINORVERSION_NUMBER 1
 #define AP_SERVER_PATCHLEVEL_NUMBER   1
-#define AP_SERVER_ADD_STRING          ""
+#define AP_SERVER_ADD_STRING          "-alpha"
 
 /* keep old macros as well */
 #define AP_SERVER_MAJORVERSION
APR_STRINGIFY(AP_SERVER_MAJORVERSION_NUMBER)


Brad


>>> justin@erenkrantz.com Friday, November 19, 2004 11:14:19 PM >>>
<http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/>

Grab the 2.1.1 tarballs while they're fresh.  Please start testing
these 
releases - they should have the intent of becoming the beginning of the
2.2.x 
series modulo all of the cleanup work we'll have to do after we branch.
 For 
now, 2.1.1 includes APR/APR-util 1.0.1 - we can adjust this later, if
need be.

2.1.1 is currently at alpha level - if we get enough +1s (i.e. 3 or
more), it 
can then be promoted to beta.  -- justin

Mime
View raw message