httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r349582 - /httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.0/
Date Tue, 29 Nov 2005 03:54:24 GMT
On Nov 28, 2005, at 6:13 PM, Paul Querna wrote:

> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2005, at 5:53 PM, pquerna@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>> Author: pquerna
>>> Date: Mon Nov 28 17:53:31 2005
>>> New Revision: 349582
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=349582&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Tag 2.2.0 from 2.1.10 tag to prepare for the 2.2.0 release
>>
>> What?  No, sorry, -1.  Your vote was on releasing 2.1.10.  You  
>> should be
>> releasing 2.1.10 to the public as GA.  2.2.0 is different -- it  
>> requires
>> new documentation and a new tarball, and thus new votes.
>
> Our rules also say that we cannot release 2.1.10 as GA.  The next  
> GA release should be called 2.2.0.

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.

> 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.

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.

> If you have a better way to manage the once-every-3 year changeover  
> from development to stable branches, please share it.
>
> This is exactly what I said I would do in the [vote] thread for  
> 2.1.10.

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

....Roy

Mime
View raw message