httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From André Malo ...@perlig.de>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 2.2.0 Alpha on Friday
Date Fri, 13 May 2005 19:07:34 GMT
* Paul Querna wrote:

> Based on the results from the  '[PROPOSAL] Branch 2.1.x on May 13',
> there are enough positive votes create the 2.1.x branch on this Friday:
>
> +1: justin, Brad, Sander, (me)
> -1: wrowe
> +1, but latter discussed problems: Jim
>
> Instead of calling it branches/2.1.x, on IRC wrowe suggested going
> straight to branches/2.2.x, and on further thought I agree.
>
> There is little point is calling it 2.1.x, if its only purpose is to
> become 2.2.x.  If we really want to move forward towards GA, we should
> just start on 2.2.x releases, and use the standard -alpha, and -beta
> names on the tarbals, until one is good enough for GA.  I doubt that the
> first alpha will be perfect, but the version numbers are cheap.
>
> My intention is to roll 2.2.0-alpha on Friday or early Saturday, after
> copying trunk to branches/2.2.x.  This is different from the original
> details of the '[PROPOSAL] Branch 2.1.x on May 13' thread, but the
> result is the same.
>
> Votes on going straight to 2.2.0-alpha?

-0.5 on calling it 2.2.x.
I'm seeing it like this:

Once forked off, 2.1.x would be *stabilizing* branch, that finally leads
to a 2.2.x branch, when we feel, it's stable (svn mv 2.1.x 2.2.x?). From the 
2.1.x branch we tag alpha and beta releases; from *stable* 2.2.x rc and 
stable release. I think that's exactly the point of the odd/even system - 
2.2.0 being a GA version.

I see (now :-) that we should have already branched 2.1.x the first time we 
released a 2.1 version.

nd
-- 
Gib' mal folgendes in die Kommandozeile ein (und einen Moment warten):

net send localhost "Buuuh!"
Na, erschreckt?                              -- Markus Becker in mpdsh

Mime
View raw message