httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 2.0.57 candidate
Date Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:31:25 GMT
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:39 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> For the sanity of all the rest of us project members, let us
>> please work from documented policy though, can we?  And feh - let's  just
>> have done with this tarball release and revisit once policy is *set*.
> FTR, we are not going to vote on legal policy.  The board will vote,
> if anyone.  Legal policies are not a PMC thing.  I implement them as
> needed or directed by the board.

Ack, +1.  (voting to not be voting :)

> I don't really care about the nit (it is present in the existing
> header text).  It is just something I noticed while implementing
> the changes for Jackrabbit.

+1 and thank you for the observation.

>> I don't concur with Colm, the tarball is the release and changing the legal
>> text is more significant, perhaps, than even the code itself.  So it's yet
>> another bump that strikes me as silly.
> *shrug*  version numbers are cheap.  I thought we only required them
> to change if the compiled bits would change or if the release was
> already announced.

Thanks for clarifying your position, as you were the only one I was thinking of
(still around these parts) who argued tag x.y.z -> tarball x.y.z is involitile.
So if this is your position, then I guess there is no reason not to retain the
number, if this is what Colm wants to do.

Appears to be Colm's choice of 1. nothing extra, 2. revert date changes/reroll,
or 3. revert date changes (w/ any other changes he wishes), bump and reroll.
That's my preference, in descending order, but support whichever he chooses.

Thanks again for all the detailed comments Roy.  With a Board policy in place,
we stand ready to resolve this.  In the interim, we can <eot> the subject.



View raw message