Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 02:40:39PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> The bottom line is that nobody took issue with Jeff's or my comments. They >> are free to do so. Colm has this time around. His points don't quite jive, >> if you offered a patch set and said "hey, this is the difference between >> the ASF's 2.2.4 and my binaries here", then his point would be spot-on and >> we'd all agree there is no issue. > > I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here, and what > points jive or not.
You specifically mentioned how many distros have patched sources, and that's true (and not an issue). What I asked was, are there distros which ship our release candidates before they are released, and if so, are they labeled as such? I still think we are talking apples and oranges. Maybe it's time to tend to our long neglected testers@ to ensure everyone is on the same page? But I'd still maintain that keeping the RC testing activity in one place is good for our releases (speaking as a more than occasional RM). > Our candidates are 100% redistributable and licensed in accordance with > AL2.0, just like our svn trees. So you can make anything out of any combination of our svn trees, with whatever patches you like, as long as you give them your own name. Right? They are not, for example, a "release 2.2.5" until the project approves them. E.g. I might have a binary "BetterScript, based on PHP sources 5.2.4 RC2", but I better not ship that as *the* "PHP 5.2.4". Do we agree on this, or not? Or are we in the mode of playing devil's advocate to spend list bandwidth? (Sometimes I don't know with you, Colm :-) I'd hate to find the RC process closed, as Jim's suggested, because of misunderstandings about this subtle difference of opinion. The only thing we lose is quality of our releases. Bill
