Re: Moving to 2.0.42? WAS: RE: Tagged and rolled 2.0.41

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 09:09:38PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
>...
> > > Just on the basic premise that the tarball has been released.  At this
> > > point, it is available for users.  If we are going to create new tarballs,
> > > then must have a new name.

Nope. The contents are the same. We're just fixing a process issue, not a
code issue.

> > *sigh*  Ofcourse you are right.  So, what do we do, stick with 2.0.41 or retag
> > APACHE_2_0_42 to be the same as APACHE_2_0_41 and reroll?
> 
> Ok, maybe this is all a bit too much for a _timestamp_.  There were no
> content changes.  So, if someone would be using 2.0.41 (before or after the
> timestamp tweak), the code would be the same.

Exactly. The rules for creating new tarballs exist so that we can know
*precisely* what code somebody is using when they say "2.0.41". If there
were three tarballs with three different bodies of code, then we'd be hosed.
And that is what the rules are about.

In this case, we aren't changing anything but a timestamp to help people.

> Since we haven't released yet
> I would like to simply replace the existing tarballs and sigs.

You're the RM. If you believe this will result in a good release, then go
for it.

>From my standpoint: +1 of course.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/