> > > 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?
That APR gets tagged with Apache, is a side-effect of not having released APR yet, nothing more. In time, we won't tag APR with an Apache tag. > > 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. The other thing, is that httpd_roll_release doesn't do the tag, it simply checks out the code that has already been tagged. Ryan
