You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net> on 2002/08/01 22:32:38 UTC
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
>
> At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
> >ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33
> >
> > Modified: build httpd_roll_release
> > Log:
> > we need apr-iconv now
>
> Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the
folks
> rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
> the current apr and apr-util trees..
I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they
can release httpd. I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull
apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems. I
understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is still
a bad solution.
Ryan
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
> > > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that
the
> folks
> > > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync
with
> > > the current apr and apr-util trees..
> >
> >I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
> >script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
> >doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before
they
> >can release httpd.
>
> Amazing that we tag APR at all, no?
That APR gets tagged with Apache, is a side-effect of not having
released APR yet, nothing more. In time, we won't tag APR with an
Apache tag.
> > I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull
> >apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems.
I
> >understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is
still
> >a bad solution.
>
> Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for
iconv.
>
> But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be
tagged
> with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an
rtag,
> that would be fine too.
The other thing, is that httpd_roll_release doesn't do the tag, it
simply checks out the code that has already been tagged.
Ryan
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
> > > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that
the
> folks
> > > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync
with
> > > the current apr and apr-util trees..
> >
> >I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
> >script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
> >doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before
they
> >can release httpd.
>
> Amazing that we tag APR at all, no?
That APR gets tagged with Apache, is a side-effect of not having
released APR yet, nothing more. In time, we won't tag APR with an
Apache tag.
> > I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull
> >apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems.
I
> >understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is
still
> >a bad solution.
>
> Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for
iconv.
>
> But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be
tagged
> with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an
rtag,
> that would be fine too.
The other thing, is that httpd_roll_release doesn't do the tag, it
simply checks out the code that has already been tagged.
Ryan
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 03:32 PM 8/1/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> >
> > At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
> > >ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33
> > >
> > > Modified: build httpd_roll_release
> > > Log:
> > > we need apr-iconv now
> >
> > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the folks
> > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
> > the current apr and apr-util trees..
>
>I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
>script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
>doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they
>can release httpd.
Amazing that we tag APR at all, no?
> I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull
>apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems. I
>understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is still
>a bad solution.
Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for iconv.
But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be tagged
with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an rtag,
that would be fine too.
Bill
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 03:32 PM 8/1/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> >
> > At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
> > >ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33
> > >
> > > Modified: build httpd_roll_release
> > > Log:
> > > we need apr-iconv now
> >
> > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the folks
> > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
> > the current apr and apr-util trees..
>
>I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
>script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
>doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they
>can release httpd.
Amazing that we tag APR at all, no?
> I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull
>apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems. I
>understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is still
>a bad solution.
Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for iconv.
But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be tagged
with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an rtag,
that would be fine too.
Bill