On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> The only BIG problem I had with Cliff's process of retagging individual
> files is that by the time he and OtherBill were finished I had no clue
> what was in the actual release version.
I can see where that would be a problem.
> How about if we go to the suggestion I posted at the time? Tag what is
> believed to be good as APACHE_GOOD, have people check that out as a branch
> and bring it up to snuff on platforms as needed, then bump the version and
> retag the APACHE_GOOD revisions as APACHE_2_0_XX, and finally merge that
> version back into HEAD. That way HEAD can keep going without bounds and
> the folks who need a polished release without the latest big fixes can
> focus their efforts on the mini-branch.
Okay, that's a reasonable approach. I didn't see the point last time, but
now I do. +1. I'll do it that way this time.
> Personally, as much as I dislike the current lack of a release tarball,
> I am more pleased with the rate at which *significant* problems are being
> found and fixed in 2.0. In my opinion, the reason 2.0 doesn't have a good
> beta release is because it simply has not been ready for beta release -- the
> big fixes we have been making lately have vastly improved it over what
> it was two months ago.
That's a good point, one we shouldn't forget. :)
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlottesville, VA
