To quote our mantra;
be forgiving of the input, strict in the output ;)
If the user 'asks' for a rollup, they aught to get a complete package,
unless it is _clearly_ labeled as an incremental.
I'm leaning, more and more, to offer both options, -complete (no
questions asked, download nothing more) and -all-extras (well, no
base, but we said, it's all the extras, pop3/mbox/proxy/ldap, at
least those quantified as of 'date' as 'gold'.)
All these packages (rollups) must contain the yyyymmdd tag for
clarity, what is 'gold' on a given day will change wrt a given
release of 'core'.
Bill
From: "Cliff Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 10:03 PM
Subject: RE: Q1: Rollup Release Format
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:
>
> > Option B seems to be reasonable to me..
> > - apache-lite - containing httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util and
> > - apache-complete - containing lite(?) + http-proxy + http-ldap
>
> Just to be clear, Option A assumes the pre-existence of what you call
> "apache-lite". The deal with the rollup release was always that the httpd
> RM could roll a release of the httpd-2.0/apr/apr-util tree without
> worrying about the extra modules like proxy etc. Once this "lite" version
> is ready to release, then the rollup team comes along behind and does the
> rollup version.
>
> Option A says that the rollup version contains everything including the
> lite version, ie, it's a complete server+modules package.
>
> Option B says that the rollup version does NOT include the lite version,
> ie it is ONLY the modules.
>
> So when you say "containing lite(?)", that's really two different options.
> (As I mentioned earlier, my personal preference is Option A.)
>
> --Cliff
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Cliff Woolley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Charlottesville, VA
>
>
>
>
