On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:07:45PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I move we tag with APR_0_9_0 so that we can maintain consistent > > versioning across 3rd party vendors. > > Why do we care about that? The vendor is responsible for ensuring the > quality of the release if we haven't actually released the software. > Also, we don't try to answer support questions that come from packages > from vendors. Finally, even if we tag, you won't get all of the vendors > to use that tag.
I don't know anything about implied support on releases or the definition of what a beta release of APR might be, but I do know that other products which depend on APR are being shipped, and they need a version number to point at. I'd prefer that this version number bear some significance in terms of stability, given our track record on the HTTPD project I don't see us making a solid 1.0 release of APR for a few more months. I'd rather have us consider marking what we have as a milestone (it has been fairly stable lately). > I guess my basic thought is that if we are going to tag 0_9_0, then I > would assume that was a beta release, and in that case, we should use an > actual beta tag, not a fake 0.9.0 tag. If it isn't a beta, then we > shouldn't be tagging it. I guess that depends on how we want to define "beta" for APR releases. -aaron
