On 12/21/2010 10:38 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:16 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >> On 12/16/2010 6:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at: >>> >>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ >>> >>> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha. >> >> +1 to httpd-2.3.10-alpha.tar.gz/bz2 >> (to the contents of httpd-2.3.10.tar.gz - but -1 to the current package name) > > I've no idea how to grok this... do you want a rename of > the archive names *as well as the resulting untarred dir* > to be renamed or just the tar.* files?
EDONTCARE, it's the package name I'm concerned about. So, let's refer to 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 which were named correctly... looking at archive.a.o/dist/httpd drwxr-xr-x 0 chip chip 0 Nov 25 2009 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/ -rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 0 Nov 25 2009 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/.deps -rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 8781 May 8 2009 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/.gdbinit -rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 14882 Feb 14 2008 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/ABOUT_APACHE ... drwxr-xr-x 0 chip chip 0 Jan 21 2010 httpd-2.3.5-alpha/ -rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 0 Jan 21 2010 httpd-2.3.5-alpha/.deps -rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 8781 May 8 2009 httpd-2.3.5-alpha/.gdbinit -rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 14882 Feb 14 2008 httpd-2.3.5-alpha/ABOUT_APACHE ... drwxr-xr-x 0 chip users 0 Jun 24 2005 httpd-2.1.6-alpha drwxr-xr-x 0 chip users 0 Jun 24 2005 httpd-2.1.6-alpha/os drwxr-xr-x 0 chip users 0 Jun 24 2005 httpd-2.1.6-alpha/os/win32 -rw-r--r-- 0 chip users 3871 Feb 18 2005 httpd-2.1.6-alpha/os/win32/os.h and finally, the last beta we shipped... drwxr-xr-x 0 chip chip 0 Oct 30 2005 httpd-2.1.9-beta/ drwxr-xr-x 0 chip chip 0 Oct 30 2005 httpd-2.1.9-beta/os/ drwxr-xr-x 0 chip chip 0 Oct 30 2005 httpd-2.1.9-beta/os/os2/ -rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 1185 Sep 29 2005 httpd-2.1.9-beta/os/os2/os.h So if you want to be 100% consistent, it appears we've embedded the path into the tarballs, but I don't care if that convention is changed, or not. I'm 100% certain there were packages in the 2.0-alpha series that did /not/ include the tag in the tarball, because they would be voted up to -alpha, -beta, or GA in the end. I'm almost certain that the internal naming wasn't decided by vote on the list, and that it's been the preference of the RM.
