On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 07:54:45PM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > Regardless of how we do the roll-up, nont of our builds should have the
> > word Apache in them. The httpd project is the httpd project. If we use the
> > word Apache, then we are co-opt
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Graham Leggett wrote:
>
>>But consensus has just been reached that there will be a
>>single rollup release, so out of necessity there will
>>have to be one version per release.
>>
>
> That is a consensus that was built quite quickly, so it
> is certainly non-bind
Graham Leggett wrote:
> Alex Stewart wrote:
>>There seems to be a big assumption here that "release" is the same as
>>"version", which seems like an unnecessary restriction.
>>
>>Frankly, if these are separate subprojects we're talking about (which it
>>seems pretty clear they're going to be evol
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > But consensus has just been reached that there will be a
> > single rollup release, so out of necessity there will
> > have to be one version per release.
>
> That is a consensus that was built quite quickly, so it
> is certainly non-binding if new data suggest
Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> But consensus has just been reached that there will be a
> single rollup release, so out of necessity there will
> have to be one version per release.
That is a consensus that was built quite quickly, so it
is certainly non-binding if new data suggest it is not
the best
Alex Stewart wrote:
> There seems to be a big assumption here that "release" is the same as
> "version", which seems like an unnecessary restriction.
>
> Frankly, if these are separate subprojects we're talking about (which it
> seems pretty clear they're going to be evolving into, if they aren'
Graham Leggett wrote:
> mod_foo wants to make a release, so they release v2.0.45.1 of the rollup
> tree, containing 2.0.45 of core and 2.0.45.1 of mod_foo. But what about
> mod_bar and the other modules? Will their tags need to be bumped up to
> 2.0.45.1 also? I would imagine they would, which i
Cliff Woolley wrote:
> Subrevision numbers should do... either use 2.0.x's x value for this or
> use 2.0.x.y's y value if x is meant to match httpd-core 2.0.x's x, which
> it probably should.
I don't see how this will work.
mod_foo wants to make a release, so they release v2.0.45.1 of the rollu
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > I am +0 on httpd-2... and +1 on apache-httpd-2...
> >
> > btw, no dates in those either (a suggestion from otherbill). The version
> > number tells us what we need to know.
>
> Not if a module has released an incremental bugfix/securityfix betw
Chuck Murcko wrote:
> If the httpd-2.0 repository were organized as CVS modules, this would be
> easy to do. So we're talking possibly fundamental changes to how we
> develop and release here.
The reason I asked the "how will we release" question first was so that
it could be used as a basis to
On Wednesday, September 19, 2001, at 05:53 PM, Chuck Murcko wrote:
> I think we need to think about these kinds of issues before we pick
> names for apr tags and release bundles.
>
I also think that we should call what we release httpd-2.0 (or
apache-2.0, whatever), and that one source releas
"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> Not if a module has released an incremental bugfix/securityfix between
> major core httpd releases, it doesn't.
If there is a security or serious bug fix, we should fire off another
rollup release. If it's a minor bugfix, a module should just wait till
the next ro
I think it also points out that we need to think a little deeper about
what we are doing concerning httpd-2.0's release plan. There's no reason
subprojects cannot hand off code to their parent projects. httpd-
proxy/module-2.0 and its docs are an example of this. I would anticipate
creating htt
From: "Greg Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 4:35 PM
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 04:32:12PM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > But I think we also have concensus that the name shouldn't be "apache".
> > "apache-httpd-2.x.x.tar.gz" seems better.
>
> Agreed.
That was m
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 04:32:12PM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Graham Leggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > The winner seems to be that the Apache group releases a rollup release
> > with all (at least apr, apr-util, httpd-2.0, httpd-proxy, httpd-ldap)
>
Joshua Slive wrote:
> I have no problem with that (although it seems that the only difference
> between this and what the group has always done is that everything lives in
> different cvs repositories).
> But I think we also have concensus that the name shouldn't be "apache".
> "apache-httpd-2.x.
> -Original Message-
> From: Graham Leggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> The winner seems to be that the Apache group releases a rollup release
> with all (at least apr, apr-util, httpd-2.0, httpd-proxy, httpd-ldap)
> the projects included, and that release is called "apache-2.x.x.tar.g
Hi all,
> o Option A: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz
+1: justin, cliff, wrowe, chuck, ianh, stoddard
> o Option B: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz, apache-modules-2.x.x.tar.gz
+1: gstein, rbb
+0.5: aaron
> o Option C: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz, apache-proxy-2.x.x.tar.gz,
+0.5: aaron
> o Option D: something else...
Ple
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> Well, apache-httpd would be fine, just like apache-tomcat or
> apache-xerces.
Indeed, that was the sense of some ASF discussions many months
ago -- that all of the projects need to have the word 'Apache'
in their formal names (if not in their filenames).
--
#kenP-)}
Chuck Murcko wrote:
> -1 for A,B,C as currently proposed. Frankly, we've voted to put the proxy
> back twice. Why are we having this vote again? The last reason I heard for
> not putting the proxy back in was "we're worried about HTTP proxy standard
> diverging". It sounds thin.
This isn't a vot
"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> In any case, I'm against B for a simple reason. Many folks will grab the core
> sources tarball, turn around, and grab the 'full' tarball. What a waste of
> our servers' bandwidth.
Option A represents a "full" tarball only.
Option B represents a "core" tarball,
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> be forgiving of the input, strict in the output ;)
>
> If the user 'asks' for a rollup, they aught to get a complete package,
> unless it is _clearly_ labeled as an incremental.
Yep.
> I'm leaning, more and more, to offer both options, -complet
y will change wrt a given
release of 'core'.
Bill
From: "Cliff Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 10:03 PM
Subject: RE: Q1: Rollup Release Format
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wro
From: "Ian Holsman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 10:02 PM
> On Tue, 2001-09-18 at 18:50, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > I'm sorry - I've transformed the entire schema.
> >
> > Yes, I'm +1 for the 'real' option A.
> +1 for 'real' option A. as well
> (here's a conundrum.
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:
> Option B seems to be reasonable to me..
> - apache-lite - containing httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util and
> - apache-complete - containing lite(?) + http-proxy + http-ldap
Just to be clear, Option A assumes the pre-existence of w
>
> And yes, something like httpd-complete would be a very nice name.
>
> Bill
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cliff Woolley"
><[EM
:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Cliff Woolley
Subject: Re: Q1: Rollup Release Format
I'm sorry - I've transformed the entire schema.
Yes, I'm +1 for the 'real' option A.
My concerns about it remain - folks will download the 'lite' core versio
tpd-complete would be a very nice name.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cliff Woolley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Q1
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cliff Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Q1: Rollup Release Format
> On Tuesday 18 September 2001 04:35 pm
-1 for A,B,C as currently proposed. Frankly, we've voted to put the proxy
back twice. Why are we having this vote again? The last reason I heard for
not putting the proxy back in was "we're worried about HTTP proxy standard
diverging". It sounds thin.
+1 for Option A once we cut out the knee jerk
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:05:27AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> o Option B: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz, apache-modules-2.x.x.tar.gz
>
> Combine httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util into apache-2.x.x.tar.gz,
> and combine httpd-proxy, httpd-ldap into apache-modules-2.x.x.tar.gz.
>
> o Option C: apache-2.x.x.t
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 04:53 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 04:35:37PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > Sure we do. Try --with-module. There are a few bugs in it, you can
> > only add a single module right now, but it works, and you can
> > build static modules into the
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 04:35:37PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> Sure we do. Try --with-module. There are a few bugs in it, you can
> only add a single module right now, but it works, and you can
> build static modules into the source without re-running buildconf.
How would you go about adding mod
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> Regardless of how we do the roll-up, nont of our builds should have the
> word Apache in them. The httpd project is the httpd project. If we use the
> word Apache, then we are co-opting the Foundation's name, instead of
> the project name.
>
Well, apach
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 04:35 pm, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > o Option A: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz
> > >
> > > Combines httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util, httpd-proxy and
> > > httpd-ldap and produces an apache rollup tree.
> >
> > +1 on Option A. I think
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 04:30 pm, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:05:27AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> >...
> > Ok - first question - what do we call the rollup release:
> >...
> > o Option B: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz, apache-modules-2.x.x.tar.gz
> >
> > Combine httpd-2.0, apr,
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 04:25 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:05:27AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> > Greg Stein wrote:
> > > I'm +1 on creating httpd-rollup, and -0.5 on putting proxy back in.
> >
> > Ok - first question - what do we call the rollup release:
> >
>
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > o Option A: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz
> >
> > Combines httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util, httpd-proxy and
> > httpd-ldap and produces an apache rollup tree.
>
> +1 on Option A. I think that anything else is going to be too
> confusing for end users.
I also
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:05:27AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
>...
> Ok - first question - what do we call the rollup release:
>...
> o Option B: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz, apache-modules-2.x.x.tar.gz
>
> Combine httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util into apache-2.x.x.tar.gz,
> and combine httpd-proxy, httpd-
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:05:27AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > I'm +1 on creating httpd-rollup, and -0.5 on putting proxy back in.
>
> Ok - first question - what do we call the rollup release:
>
> o Option A: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz
>
> Combines httpd-2.0, apr, apr-uti
Greg Stein wrote:
> I'm +1 on creating httpd-rollup, and -0.5 on putting proxy back in.
Ok - first question - what do we call the rollup release:
o Option A: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz
Combines httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util, httpd-proxy and
httpd-ldap and produces an apache rollup tree.
o Option B: a
41 matches
Mail list logo
