Release from the 2.1-dev branch?

[Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>]

Is anyone interested in seeing a release from the dev branch? I suspect
there are some users out there who would like to get their hands dirty,
and would be happy to give us their feedback.

-aaron

Re: Release from the 2.1-dev branch?

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

--On Tuesday, May 13, 2003 11:49 PM -0700 Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org> 
wrote:

> I was just going to call the tarball something like
> "httpd-2.1.0-alpha.tar.gz", do you think that's enough?

My hunch is it's not, but I'm open to what others think.

> I've been meaning to clean up the mirrorable parts of /dist/httpd, maybe
> now's a good time to do that.

Yeah, now that we have the ASF-wide suggestions from:

<http://www.apache.org/dev/mirrors.html>

It might be a good idea to incorporate them and/or refine them based on what 
we think works for httpd.  -- justin

Re: Release from the 2.1-dev branch?

[Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>]

On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 11:11  PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> The only thought that I would make is that we should place 2.1 
> releases in /dist/httpd/unstable/ or something to make it clear that 
> it's not the same 'expected' quality as 2.0.

I was just going to call the tarball something like 
"httpd-2.1.0-alpha.tar.gz",
do you think that's enough?

I've been meaning to clean up the mirrorable parts of /dist/httpd, maybe
now's a good time to do that.

-aaron

Re: Release from the 2.1-dev branch?

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

--On Tuesday, May 13, 2003 10:23 PM -0700 Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org> 
wrote:

> Is anyone interested in seeing a release from the dev branch? I suspect
> there are some users out there who would like to get their hands dirty,
> and would be happy to give us their feedback.

+1 - it's been a ridiculously long time since we've released HEAD.  The only 
thought that I would make is that we should place 2.1 releases in 
/dist/httpd/unstable/ or something to make it clear that it's not the same 
'expected' quality as 2.0.

AIUI, the 2.1 branch is under the 'release often and version numbers are cheap 
and you get whatever is there so don't complain' versioning rules.  My type of 
versioning rules.  =)  -- justin