On Wednesday 29 August 2001 21:18, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 09:17:32PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> > On Wed, 2001-08-29 at 20:22, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > Should we be at 2.0.26-dev in ap_release.h? -- justin
> >
> > should we re-roll&tar 26 (which would include a patch to worker and
> > ldap_cache, some NW fixes and the apr-dbm change)
> >
> > or just re-tag the 2 files modified as 25 and re tar?
>
> We shouldn't re-roll 2.0.25. We need to T&R 2.0.26 instead, IMHO.
>
> We also need the just-committed mod_mime fix. I'll leave the
> rolling to someone who has done it before (rbb?). Try, try,
> again.
>
> I'm verifying wrowe's commit right now. It looks right. =)
> See if it works right... -- justin
We shouldn't do either. If you go back and read the original thread,
one of the general rules of this release strategy is that we don't release
every day. We just rolled a tarball, and announced it to the new-httpd,
so there are people testing it at this point. That tarball has to stand or
fall on it's own. In a week, we can re-roll 2.0.26, and try again.
This, BTW, is why I originally stated that this release mechanism wouldn't
work. We keep on trying to improve the server, which means that people
keep changing core parts of the server. Either people need to stop
doing that, and just focus on fixing bugs, or we all need to accept that we
will be stuck with just one beta for a VERY long time.
Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------
