httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r349582 - /httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.0/
Date Tue, 29 Nov 2005 04:07:27 GMT
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 07:54:24PM -0800, Roy Fielding wrote:
> What rules are you talking about?  GA just means it isn't alpha or  
> beta -- it
> has nothing whatsoever to do with the version number.  2.2 is now our  
> STABLE
> branch, not our GA branch.

See VERSIONING.

> >I don't intend to release a 2.2.0 tarball without another vote.   
> >They will be identical to the 2.1.10 tarballs, except for the  
> >version number. (give me a few more minutes and they will be posted).
> 
> Please don't do that.  Change the version to 2.0.0-dev and then give  
> people
> like me time to go in and edit the documentation (which is kinda hard  
> for
> me to do at the moment because fink blew away my svn install and I can't
> build it any more).  We have two weeks before ApacheCon, so there is  
> no rush.

What documentation are you talking about?

> In any case, we vote on complete source tarballs, not some  
> expectation of
> a tag.  There can't be any 2.2.0 release votes yet because it doesn't  
> exist
> as a released tarball, nor can it exist until we have updated the docs.

Yes, and we voted on the tarball contents which would be identical to
2.1.10.  The only change is the release number inside ap_release.h.
I don't consider that a material change that would alter my vote.

Our goal with VERSIONING is to *never* have 2.2.0-dev.  We go straight
to GA status with 2.2.0-final after 2.1.x.  This has been the plan we've
discussed for the last three years here on dev@httpd.

> No, it isn't -- you said that it was a vote to release 2.1.10.  I  

Paul precisely described what he was going to do in his vote email.

I wish you had raised your concerns before rather than after the fact.

> assumed
> that meant you were going to bump the version number in CVS.  There were
> several people who said they were +1 on 2.1.10 and NOT 2.2.0, and our
> voting guidelines have never allowed a release vote to take place before
> the release was even prepared.

The majority of votes cast were for GA.  At least to me and Rich (and
likely others), that implied 2.2.0.  A few people (but not enough to
alter the majority) specifically said that they would not vote for
2.2.0.  -- justin

Mime
View raw message