At 03:32 PM 8/1/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
> >ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33
> >
> > Modified: build httpd_roll_release
> > Log:
> > we need apr-iconv now
>
> Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the folks
> rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
> the current apr and apr-util trees..
I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they
can release httpd.
Amazing that we tag APR at all, no?
I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull
apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems. I
understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is still
a bad solution.
Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for iconv.
But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be tagged
with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an rtag,
that would be fine too.
Bill
