On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:07:41 -0500, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Here's my +1 for adopting the HTTP server release process, with > >whatever modifications we deem necessary. > > I agree with this. I believe we should consider anything a release > which has gone through the release checklist and had a version number > assigned and a corresponding tag applied to SVN. This is a purely > mechanical definition. Anything else might involve confusion if a > version number were reused.
I disagree with the idea of calling anything a Release without voting on it. What led to our change in process was a desire to move to the Tomcat way of doing things. Mention of the HTTPD way of doing things came along later. The Tomcat way has us building Test Builds which we later vote on to decide if it's a Release of any sort. That is the process that I followed for 1.2.4, and that is the process that I want to see us adopt. It was actually my understanding that we had already done so, which is why I've been following it. If the HTTPD process is different from that, then I am -1 on adopting that process. -- Martin Cooper > > I think only the promotion of a release from "alpha" should require a vote. > > Joe > > -- > Joe Germuska > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://blog.germuska.com > "In fact, when I die, if I don't hear 'A Love Supreme,' I'll turn > back; I'll know I'm in the wrong place." > - Carlos Santana > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
