On Tuesday 30 October 2001 11:36 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 07:18:47AM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > jerenkrantz 01/10/30 23:18:47 > > > > Modified: . STATUS > > Log: > > 2.0.27 has been tagged. > > 2.0.26 has been discarded. > > > > Revision Changes Path > > 1.318 +3 -2 httpd-2.0/STATUS > > > > Index: STATUS > > =================================================================== > > RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/STATUS,v > > retrieving revision 1.317 > > retrieving revision 1.318 > > diff -u -r1.317 -r1.318 > > --- STATUS 2001/10/24 17:20:44 1.317 > > +++ STATUS 2001/10/31 07:18:47 1.318 > > @@ -1,9 +1,10 @@ > > APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*- > > -Last modified at [$Date: 2001/10/24 17:20:44 $] > > +Last modified at [$Date: 2001/10/31 07:18:47 $] > > > > Release: > > > > - 2.0.26 : tagged October 16th, 2001. > > + 2.0.27 : tagged October 30th, 2001. > > + 2.0.26 : tagged October 16th, 2001. not rolled. > > 2.0.25 : rolled August 29, 2001 > > 2.0.24 : rolled August 18, 2001 > > 2.0.23 : rolled August 9, 2001 > > IMHO, it seems to be appropriate to note that we never rolled 2.0.26. > Should we update STATUS as part of the tagging process or only when > rolling a tarball? But, if like 2.0.26, we tag but not roll, what > do we say? I don't care what it says as long as it indicates that > 2.0.26 was never rolled... > > We missed this for 1.3.22 and for 2.0.26, so we might want to be > somewhat consistent about this or someone needs to clue me in on > what STATUS should say. =) -- justin
We should have tree states, tagged The tree was tagged rolled A tarball was created released The tarball was released. Those are simple, and consistant with what is in the file today. Ryan ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
