From: "Joshua Slive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 4:36 PM
> > From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > My point is that I disagree with that. We have been bumping tags on > > files when releasing 2.0 since 2.0.16, and we aren't even talking about > > bumping a tag here. We are just talking about rolling the tarball on a > > different machine than was originally used. The code didn't change > > between the original tarball and the second, just the machine used to do > > the roll. ++1... this shouldn't be a huge hangup. But Josh has a point... > The justification for not doing this is that the 2.0.31 tarball is now > public (officially or not). Now if we reroll a new tarball and someone > comes to us and says "I'm having a problem with 2.0.31", we will never be > able to know exactly what they are using. Even just the simple matter of > creating a .tar.gz can create big differences between distributions, let > alone the question of buildconf. Except that "What package did you download" isn't an unreasonable question. "Oh, I'm not sure, I renamed it to fsukup.tar.gz" isn't an acceptable answer. That's why we have kicked around the idea of rolling these into the -beta ... sure the -alpha package had a few packaging issues. They are resolved, life rolls on. > Suggestion: Tag 2.0.32 at exactly the same place as 2.0.31 (possibly with a > bump for the netware stuff) roll a new tarball with that version, and > release that. That is quite a waste for build-issues on an alpha.
