You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to cvs@httpd.apache.org by pq...@apache.org on 2005/11/29 02:53:34 UTC
svn commit: r349582 - /httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.0/
Author: pquerna
Date: Mon Nov 28 17:53:31 2005
New Revision: 349582
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=349582&view=rev
Log:
Tag 2.2.0 from 2.1.10 tag to prepare for the 2.2.0 release
Added:
httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.0/
- copied from r349581, httpd/httpd/tags/2.1.10/
Documentation for 2.2.0, was Re: svn commit: r349582 - /httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.0/
Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> What documentation are you talking about?
>
> ABOUT_APACHE
Hasn't been updated since 2002. What does it have to do with a 2.2.0
release?
> CHANGES
What needs to be added or changed here? It notes the changes between
versions. Seems fine to me.
> docs/manual/*
Already updated by lots of people. It has the version numbers fixed.
What exactly do you think needs to be updated?
> INSTALL
> LAYOUT
> README
Already has updated URLs.
> */*/README
After a quick look, I didn't see anything needing updating in these:
build/pkg/README modules/experimental/README
docs/error/README modules/ssl/README
docs/icons/README modules/test/README
modules/debug/README srclib/pcre/README
> include/ap_release.h
> include/ap_mmn.h (probably okay as is)
Yes, these are already done.
-Paul
Re: svn commit: r349582 - /httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.0/
Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> and that is just what goes inside the tarball. We also have to update the
> STATUS files, the website (I see Paul has started that), create docs-2.2,
> and all of the other things people will remember as soon as we cross the
> tarball threshold.
FWIW, docs-2.2 already works on the website:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/
Re: svn commit: r349582 - /httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.0/
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Nov 28, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 07:54:24PM -0800, Roy Fielding wrote:
>> What rules are you talking about? GA just means it isn't alpha or
>> beta -- it
>> has nothing whatsoever to do with the version number. 2.2 is now our
>> STABLE
>> branch, not our GA branch.
>
> See VERSIONING.
I've seen it. 2.2.0 is our stable branch. I believe the vote
indicates that
the 2.2.0 release should match the code in 2.1.10 modulo the changes
necessary
to bump the version and update the documentation. However, nobody
bypasses
our release voting procedure just because they committed some
document in CVS.
Release votes are on completed, verifiable, signed source tar balls.
> What documentation are you talking about?
ABOUT_APACHE
CHANGES
docs/manual/*
INSTALL
LAYOUT
README
*/*/README
include/ap_release.h
include/ap_mmn.h (probably okay as is)
and that is just what goes inside the tarball. We also have to
update the
STATUS files, the website (I see Paul has started that), create
docs-2.2,
and all of the other things people will remember as soon as we cross the
tarball threshold.
I mentioned those on our trip to Wells Fargo last week. I would have
fixed
them myself by now, but I made the mistake of updating my OS X 10.3.9 to
10.4.3 and Xcode 2.2 first, which led to three wasted days trying to fix
lame fink bugs instead.
>> In any case, we vote on complete source tarballs, not some
>> expectation of
>> a tag. There can't be any 2.2.0 release votes yet because it doesn't
>> exist
>> as a released tarball, nor can it exist until we have updated the
>> docs.
>
> Yes, and we voted on the tarball contents which would be identical to
> 2.1.10. The only change is the release number inside ap_release.h.
> I don't consider that a material change that would alter my vote.
So if I were to go the website and cp 2.1.10.tar* 2.2.0.tar* you
wouldn't change your vote on that copy? You wouldn't mind that the
tarball has ap_version wrong, the docs were last updated in 2002,
and we would need to do a 2.2.1 to clean that trivial stuff up?
I am not asking you to change your vote once a 2.2.0 tarball is created.
I am telling you that you can't vote on 2.2.0 until a tarball is created
that calls itself 2.2.0 and thus is available for review. I refuse to
believe that anyone on the PMC has reviewed a release package that
hasn't
even been packaged yet.
Feel free to veto any technical change that would cause 2.2.0 to differ
significantly from 2.1.10. Feel free to make your vote on 2.2.0 on the
basis of a recursive diff between the two tarball packages.
> The majority of votes cast were for GA. At least to me and Rich (and
> likely others), that implied 2.2.0. A few people (but not enough to
> alter the majority) specifically said that they would not vote for
> 2.2.0. -- justin
The only vote I saw was a 2.1.10 release vote and a statement of
intention
to make 2.2.0 match the code in 2.1.10. That does not imply 2.2.0 is
being
released based on that vote, which is patently absurd. If you think
anything
in our guidelines implies such a thing, then please point it out so that
I can delete it.
....Roy
Re: svn commit: r349582 - /httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.0/
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 07:54:24PM -0800, Roy Fielding wrote:
> What rules are you talking about? GA just means it isn't alpha or
> beta -- it
> has nothing whatsoever to do with the version number. 2.2 is now our
> STABLE
> branch, not our GA branch.
See VERSIONING.
> >I don't intend to release a 2.2.0 tarball without another vote.
> >They will be identical to the 2.1.10 tarballs, except for the
> >version number. (give me a few more minutes and they will be posted).
>
> Please don't do that. Change the version to 2.0.0-dev and then give
> people
> like me time to go in and edit the documentation (which is kinda hard
> for
> me to do at the moment because fink blew away my svn install and I can't
> build it any more). We have two weeks before ApacheCon, so there is
> no rush.
What documentation are you talking about?
> In any case, we vote on complete source tarballs, not some
> expectation of
> a tag. There can't be any 2.2.0 release votes yet because it doesn't
> exist
> as a released tarball, nor can it exist until we have updated the docs.
Yes, and we voted on the tarball contents which would be identical to
2.1.10. The only change is the release number inside ap_release.h.
I don't consider that a material change that would alter my vote.
Our goal with VERSIONING is to *never* have 2.2.0-dev. We go straight
to GA status with 2.2.0-final after 2.1.x. This has been the plan we've
discussed for the last three years here on dev@httpd.
> No, it isn't -- you said that it was a vote to release 2.1.10. I
Paul precisely described what he was going to do in his vote email.
I wish you had raised your concerns before rather than after the fact.
> assumed
> that meant you were going to bump the version number in CVS. There were
> several people who said they were +1 on 2.1.10 and NOT 2.2.0, and our
> voting guidelines have never allowed a release vote to take place before
> the release was even prepared.
The majority of votes cast were for GA. At least to me and Rich (and
likely others), that implied 2.2.0. A few people (but not enough to
alter the majority) specifically said that they would not vote for
2.2.0. -- justin
Re: svn commit: r349582 - /httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.0/
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Roy T.Fielding wrote:
>>
>> This is exactly what I said I would do in the [vote] thread for 2.1.10.
>
> No, it isn't -- you said that it was a vote to release 2.1.10. I assumed
> that meant you were going to bump the version number in CVS. There were
> several people who said they were +1 on 2.1.10 and NOT 2.2.0, and our
> voting guidelines have never allowed a release vote to take place before
> the release was even prepared.
Well, there were enough votes that 2.1.10 was GA quality, and 2.1.x will never
be GA, I believe most of the community understood that as 'graduating' 2.1 to
2.2 (with the appropriate patches and vote on the final 2.2.0 package).
The transition to 2.2.0 couldn't happen without a vote, and I believe that Paul
called for that vote close-to-properly.
Those of us voting against 2.2.0 from his 2.1.10 tag were, I believe, outvoted,
and new version/releases can't be vetoed.
But if 2.2.0 fails to pass muster, note that the next package will be 2.2.1,
with 2.2.0 unreleased (perhaps a good thing for folks who avoid .zeros.)
Bill
Re: svn commit: r349582 - /httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.0/
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Nov 28, 2005, at 6:13 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2005, at 5:53 PM, pquerna@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>> Author: pquerna
>>> Date: Mon Nov 28 17:53:31 2005
>>> New Revision: 349582
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=349582&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Tag 2.2.0 from 2.1.10 tag to prepare for the 2.2.0 release
>>
>> What? No, sorry, -1. Your vote was on releasing 2.1.10. You
>> should be
>> releasing 2.1.10 to the public as GA. 2.2.0 is different -- it
>> requires
>> new documentation and a new tarball, and thus new votes.
>
> Our rules also say that we cannot release 2.1.10 as GA. The next
> GA release should be called 2.2.0.
What rules are you talking about? GA just means it isn't alpha or
beta -- it
has nothing whatsoever to do with the version number. 2.2 is now our
STABLE
branch, not our GA branch.
> I don't intend to release a 2.2.0 tarball without another vote.
> They will be identical to the 2.1.10 tarballs, except for the
> version number. (give me a few more minutes and they will be posted).
Please don't do that. Change the version to 2.0.0-dev and then give
people
like me time to go in and edit the documentation (which is kinda hard
for
me to do at the moment because fink blew away my svn install and I can't
build it any more). We have two weeks before ApacheCon, so there is
no rush.
In any case, we vote on complete source tarballs, not some
expectation of
a tag. There can't be any 2.2.0 release votes yet because it doesn't
exist
as a released tarball, nor can it exist until we have updated the docs.
> If you have a better way to manage the once-every-3 year changeover
> from development to stable branches, please share it.
>
> This is exactly what I said I would do in the [vote] thread for
> 2.1.10.
No, it isn't -- you said that it was a vote to release 2.1.10. I
assumed
that meant you were going to bump the version number in CVS. There were
several people who said they were +1 on 2.1.10 and NOT 2.2.0, and our
voting guidelines have never allowed a release vote to take place before
the release was even prepared.
....Roy
Re: svn commit: r349582 - /httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.0/
Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2005, at 5:53 PM, pquerna@apache.org wrote:
>
>> Author: pquerna
>> Date: Mon Nov 28 17:53:31 2005
>> New Revision: 349582
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=349582&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Tag 2.2.0 from 2.1.10 tag to prepare for the 2.2.0 release
>
> What? No, sorry, -1. Your vote was on releasing 2.1.10. You should be
> releasing 2.1.10 to the public as GA. 2.2.0 is different -- it requires
> new documentation and a new tarball, and thus new votes.
Our rules also say that we cannot release 2.1.10 as GA. The next GA
release should be called 2.2.0.
I don't intend to release a 2.2.0 tarball without another vote. They
will be identical to the 2.1.10 tarballs, except for the version number.
(give me a few more minutes and they will be posted).
If you have a better way to manage the once-every-3 year changeover from
development to stable branches, please share it.
This is exactly what I said I would do in the [vote] thread for 2.1.10.
-Paul
Re: svn commit: r349582 - /httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.0/
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 05:59:29PM -0800, Roy Fielding wrote:
>
>>What? No, sorry, -1. Your vote was on releasing 2.1.10. You should be
>>releasing 2.1.10 to the public as GA. 2.2.0 is different -- it requires
>>new documentation and a new tarball, and thus new votes.
>
>
> But, um, we can't do that under our versioning rules. Only 2.2.x can be
> called GA.
>
> (The docs in the 2.1.10 tarball should not need to be changed as it
> already reports itself as 2.2 there.)
>
> My vote (and I believe the intent of the folks who voted for GA status)
> was specifically for allowing this tarball to be called 2.2.0. -- justin
Hmm. That's what I thought I was voting on. And I certainly understood
that Paul meant that too.
- --
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDi7lsXP03+sx4yJMRAg4/AJ9xviNYdgLQEiTCOIi5kOPhv0LRHACgiYjk
HhfyBklUpylwn8fI4WTJ6RU=
=yi3N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: svn commit: r349582 - /httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.0/
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 05:59:29PM -0800, Roy Fielding wrote:
> What? No, sorry, -1. Your vote was on releasing 2.1.10. You should be
> releasing 2.1.10 to the public as GA. 2.2.0 is different -- it requires
> new documentation and a new tarball, and thus new votes.
But, um, we can't do that under our versioning rules. Only 2.2.x can be
called GA.
(The docs in the 2.1.10 tarball should not need to be changed as it
already reports itself as 2.2 there.)
My vote (and I believe the intent of the folks who voted for GA status)
was specifically for allowing this tarball to be called 2.2.0. -- justin
Re: svn commit: r349582 - /httpd/httpd/tags/2.2.0/
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Nov 28, 2005, at 5:53 PM, pquerna@apache.org wrote:
> Author: pquerna
> Date: Mon Nov 28 17:53:31 2005
> New Revision: 349582
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=349582&view=rev
> Log:
> Tag 2.2.0 from 2.1.10 tag to prepare for the 2.2.0 release
What? No, sorry, -1. Your vote was on releasing 2.1.10. You should be
releasing 2.1.10 to the public as GA. 2.2.0 is different -- it requires
new documentation and a new tarball, and thus new votes.
....Roy