On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:07:41 -0500, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>Here's my +1 for adopting the HTTP server release process, with >whatever modifications we deem necessary.
I agree with this. I believe we should consider anything a release which has gone through the release checklist and had a version number assigned and a corresponding tag applied to SVN. This is a purely mechanical definition. Anything else might involve confusion if a version number were reused.
I disagree with the idea of calling anything a Release without voting on it. What led to our change in process was a desire to move to the Tomcat way of doing things. Mention of the HTTPD way of doing things came along later. The Tomcat way has us building Test Builds which we later vote on to decide if it's a Release of any sort. That is the process that I followed for 1.2.4, and that is the process that I want to see us adopt. It was actually my understanding that we had already done so, which is why I've been following it. If the HTTPD process is different from that, then I am -1 on adopting that process.
In my ignorance, I didn't even realize that there was that much difference between Tomcat's process and HTTPD's process.
I would formalize my vote as +0 - I don't feel very strongly about it, and Martin apparently does. I had thought we were going to do it the way I described, but I don't really think much is lost by adding in a "test build" period. I do think there would be potential confusion if a test build was not voted as a release, but the amount of that potential confusion is probably pretty low if we're just talking about activity on the dev list.
Joe
--
Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "In fact, when I die, if I don't hear 'A Love Supreme,' I'll turn back; I'll know I'm in the wrong place."
- Carlos Santana
