Oh... summary of what I said: Ryan's approach is the right one for now. If somebody wants to spend some time formalizing APR's release process, then go for it.
Cheers, -g On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:58:11PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:04:16PM -0800, Daniel Rall wrote: > > Ben Hyde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Ben Hyde wrote: > > > > > > APACHE_2_0 or SUBVERSION_X_Y. > > > > > > > > > > I find this weird > > > > > > still > > [...] > > > > as easy as possible. > > > > > > it's weird for tags in apr to named after user's projects. > > [...] > > > meanwhile the apr using code should be paranoid > > > at compile & runtime about what version of apr > > > they are associating with. > > > > > > sequential fast moving build numbers are good > > > for this. > > > > I agree with Ben. What's the problem with doing another tag of APR > > whenever one of the two projects driving development needs a tag for > > its own build? > > APR does not (yet) have its own independent release system. It is not yet > formally released with its own version numbers and labelling. > > As a further result, none of the clients are including APR based on a > tarball. They all refer directly to the HEAD and release the APR sources > bundled directly in. > > Any tags that the clients are placing on the APR tree are merely commentary. > Something along the lines of "we snapped a release right <here>". > > If somebody wants to take a bit of time and turn the APR release mechanics > into a formal system, then we can start adjusting the Apache and SVN release > systems to say "we chose APR 1.0.7 for this release of <FOO>". > > Cheers, > -g > > -- > Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
