Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.5, 2.0.60 1.3.38 release candidate tarballs

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> 
> On 08/12/2007 05:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > 
> > Also, would this require a new tag for 2.0.60? It's not
> > an Apache problem, rather with how the 2.0.60 tarball was
> > done, but whenever problems have existed in the tarballs
> > before, we have retagged and rerolled, which I think we
> > would need to do now... That's what I'm going to do...
> 
> Although this is an apr problem and would mean that the tags for 2.0.60
> and 2.0.61 would be the same I would prefer a new tag and a new tarball
> 2.0.61 to avoid any confusion.
> 

Yepper... from day one once the tarball is cut, no matter
what's wrong with it, if we need to release another,
we bump the tags... there's always the chance that an
"unofficial" tarball will leak and the bump ensures that
there's only 1 official release :)

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
	    "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."