On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 03:51:22PM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote: > On Tuesday 13 November 2001 03:49 pm, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 04:08:09PM -0500, Greg Ames wrote: > > >... > > > As it turns out, the docs/conf/httpd-*.conf files also have post-tag > > > changes. So changing/re-tagging them in cvs would be as complex as > > > changing the code. > > > > WHAT? Are you saying that I cannot produce the 2.0.28 tarball from CVS? > > > > That isn't right. > > I would go even farther. That is completely bogus, and if it is true, then > 2.0.28 must be dropped. This is why we shouldn't be making so many changes > to a tag. Either the tag lives or dies once it has been laid. Small changes, > fine. But we added like four or five bug fixes to 2.0.28.
Woah hold on...That's not what he's saying. The way I read that was he wanted to simply apply the httpd-std.conf changes and bump the tag, but since there have been other fixes since the the tag that weren't intended to be included in 2.0.28, it wouldn't be feasible. -aaron
