You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by rb...@covalent.net on 2001/02/11 17:04:34 UTC
Release tag names
This is to get some closure on stuff. We started a discussion last week
about how to name the release tags. Some people like a sequential minor
number, others (myself included) wanted to use a date string.
I have tagged two different releases, one with each method. I have to say
that using the minor number makes things easier. The problem is the
tarball and directory names. If we use dates, then the tarball becomes
httpd_2.0_2001_02_11, if we use a minor number, then it is httpd_2.0.10
The second is easier to type (although the script does all that for us),
and it matches what we have been using for years.
The second half of this is the process that we use.
Here is what I have now:
( cvs co httpd-2.0; cd httpd-2.0/srclib; cvs co apr apr-util )
cvs tag APACHE_2_0_XX
~/httpd-site/httpd_roll_release tag_name logfile_name [user_name]
{ This will prompt for your PGP password }
chmod 644 CHANGES httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
cp /www/dev.apache.org/dist/
chmod g+w /www/dev.apache.org/dist/httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
This makes it available for general testing.
Once a level has been decided upon, this will need to be re-rolled using
the following steps:
Modify the Announcement in httpd-site to taste.
( cvs co httpd-2.0; cd httpd-2.0 ; cvs co httpd-site/Announcement ; \
cd srclib; cvs co apr apr-util )
Modify httpd-2.0/include/ap_release.h
cvs tag APACHE_2_0_RELEASE_TAG
RELEASE_TAG should be b1, a10, 0
~/httpd-site/httpd_roll_release tag_name logfile_name [user_name]
chmod 644 CHANGES httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
cp /www/dev.apache.org/dist/
chmod g+w /www/dev.apache.org/dist/httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
For people to test again.
Then the tarball gets put into /www/www.apache.org/dist, and all the
.htaccess and make the announcement.
This is markedly better than the process used to be. However, the double
tag and roll kind of sucks. My problem is how we get around doing the
double tag and roll, but still get the Announcement in the tarball (I
could live without this), and update the server-string (I am very much
against not doing this).
Thoughts, comments, critisms?
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Release tag names
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 10:42:49PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > chmod 644 CHANGES httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
> > cp /www/dev.apache.org/dist/
> > chmod g+w /www/dev.apache.org/dist/httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
> >
> > This makes it available for general testing.
>
> I would prefer that we change to use the tarball name of
>
> apache_httpd_2_0_XX_alpha.tar.*
>
> because it reduces a lot of download headaches if the periods
> are only used for type extensions.
Seems reasonable.
Can I lobby for '-' rather than '_' ? apache-httpd-2_0_XX-alpha.tar.*
>... [double tag, retest ]
>
> That's a complete waste of time. Do this instead:
Agreed... much heavier than necessary.
> foreach i (gz gz.asc Z Z.asc)
> mv apache_httpd_2_0_XX_alpha.tar.$i apache_httpd_2_0_XX_beta.tar.$i
> end
>
> and then change the website as appropriate. BTW, shouldn't this be
> under /www/httpd.apache.org/dist/?
Actually, that just points to /www/www.apache.org/dist/. The theory is that
we will release all the Apache software from there.
> > This is markedly better than the process used to be. However, the double
> > tag and roll kind of sucks. My problem is how we get around doing the
> > double tag and roll, but still get the Announcement in the tarball (I
> > could live without this), and update the server-string (I am very much
> > against not doing this).
>
> Definitely getting better. We don't need the Announcement in the tarball.
> People who have the tarball already know it exists.
Agreed.
> I still cannot understand why you want the Server string to contain
> anything but the version number. Please don't tell me that users want
> this -- the only people who ever look at the Server string are marketing
> wonks and software developers.
Agreed. A version string will state the exact software they are running. It
doesn't have to say anything about its quality.
[ and for people that want to map version to quality, they have STATUS, or
we could even have a web page on httpd.apache.org that lists the version,
release date (if any), and quality of all the servers ]
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Release tag names
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 06:34:58AM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >...
> > > apache_httpd_2_0_XX_alpha.tar.*
> > >
> > > because it reduces a lot of download headaches if the periods
> > > are only used for type extensions.
> >
> > Easily done. One question, how can we put a label of "alpha" on code that
> > has never been tested?
>
> Interesting point. Maybe call it "-untested.tar.*" ?
Actually, I figure that the lowest we will ever release anything is alpha,
so calling something alpha that never gets released is okay.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Release tag names
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 06:34:58AM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>...
> > apache_httpd_2_0_XX_alpha.tar.*
> >
> > because it reduces a lot of download headaches if the periods
> > are only used for type extensions.
>
> Easily done. One question, how can we put a label of "alpha" on code that
> has never been tested?
Interesting point. Maybe call it "-untested.tar.*" ?
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Release tag names
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > chmod 644 CHANGES httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
> > cp /www/dev.apache.org/dist/
> > chmod g+w /www/dev.apache.org/dist/httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
> >
> > This makes it available for general testing.
>
> I would prefer that we change to use the tarball name of
>
> apache_httpd_2_0_XX_alpha.tar.*
>
> because it reduces a lot of download headaches if the periods
> are only used for type extensions.
Easily done. One question, how can we put a label of "alpha" on code that
has never been tested?
> > Once a level has been decided upon, this will need to be re-rolled using
> > the following steps:
> >
> > Modify the Announcement in httpd-site to taste.
> >
> > ( cvs co httpd-2.0; cd httpd-2.0 ; cvs co httpd-site/Announcement ; \
> > cd srclib; cvs co apr apr-util )
> > Modify httpd-2.0/include/ap_release.h
> > cvs tag APACHE_2_0_RELEASE_TAG
> > RELEASE_TAG should be b1, a10, 0
> >
> > ~/httpd-site/httpd_roll_release tag_name logfile_name [user_name]
> > chmod 644 CHANGES httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
> > cp /www/dev.apache.org/dist/
> > chmod g+w /www/dev.apache.org/dist/httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
> >
> > For people to test again.
>
> That's a complete waste of time. Do this instead:
>
> foreach i (gz gz.asc Z Z.asc)
> mv apache_httpd_2_0_XX_alpha.tar.$i apache_httpd_2_0_XX_beta.tar.$i
> end
>
> and then change the website as appropriate. BTW, shouldn't this be
> under /www/httpd.apache.org/dist/?
That doesn't get the header updated in the tree, it just changes the
tarball name.
> > This is markedly better than the process used to be. However, the double
> > tag and roll kind of sucks. My problem is how we get around doing the
> > double tag and roll, but still get the Announcement in the tarball (I
> > could live without this), and update the server-string (I am very much
> > against not doing this).
>
> Definitely getting better. We don't need the Announcement in the tarball.
> People who have the tarball already know it exists.
As I said I would be perfectly happy to go without this.
> I still cannot understand why you want the Server string to contain
> anything but the version number. Please don't tell me that users want
> this -- the only people who ever look at the Server string are marketing
> wonks and software developers.
Fine. I'm not fighting anymore. I will modify the script so that the
initial checkout modifies the ap_release.h file and checks it back in
before the tag. Then we will name the tarball appropriately. Every
tarball will start out with as an "alpha", because until we test there is
no way it could be better than an alpha.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Release tag names
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@ebuilt.com>.
> chmod 644 CHANGES httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
> cp /www/dev.apache.org/dist/
> chmod g+w /www/dev.apache.org/dist/httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
>
> This makes it available for general testing.
I would prefer that we change to use the tarball name of
apache_httpd_2_0_XX_alpha.tar.*
because it reduces a lot of download headaches if the periods
are only used for type extensions.
> Once a level has been decided upon, this will need to be re-rolled using
> the following steps:
>
> Modify the Announcement in httpd-site to taste.
>
> ( cvs co httpd-2.0; cd httpd-2.0 ; cvs co httpd-site/Announcement ; \
> cd srclib; cvs co apr apr-util )
> Modify httpd-2.0/include/ap_release.h
> cvs tag APACHE_2_0_RELEASE_TAG
> RELEASE_TAG should be b1, a10, 0
>
> ~/httpd-site/httpd_roll_release tag_name logfile_name [user_name]
> chmod 644 CHANGES httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
> cp /www/dev.apache.org/dist/
> chmod g+w /www/dev.apache.org/dist/httpd_2.0.XX.tar.*
>
> For people to test again.
That's a complete waste of time. Do this instead:
foreach i (gz gz.asc Z Z.asc)
mv apache_httpd_2_0_XX_alpha.tar.$i apache_httpd_2_0_XX_beta.tar.$i
end
and then change the website as appropriate. BTW, shouldn't this be
under /www/httpd.apache.org/dist/?
> This is markedly better than the process used to be. However, the double
> tag and roll kind of sucks. My problem is how we get around doing the
> double tag and roll, but still get the Announcement in the tarball (I
> could live without this), and update the server-string (I am very much
> against not doing this).
Definitely getting better. We don't need the Announcement in the tarball.
People who have the tarball already know it exists.
I still cannot understand why you want the Server string to contain
anything but the version number. Please don't tell me that users want
this -- the only people who ever look at the Server string are marketing
wonks and software developers.
....Roy
Re: Release tag names
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> ~/httpd-site/httpd_roll_release tag_name logfile_name [user_name]
> { This will prompt for your PGP password }
I should also mention that if you use `httpd_roll_release help`, you will
get a small usage text.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------