On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:09:34AM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> > > > We shouldn't do either. If you go back and read the original thread,
> > > > one of the general rules of this release strategy is that we don't
> > > > release every day. We just rolled a tarball, and announced it to the
> > > > new-httpd, so there are people testing it at this point. That tarball
> > > > has to stand or fall on it's own. In a week, we can re-roll 2.0.26, and
> > > > try again.
>
> That's silly. That makes it very difficult to be sure we're stable again
> by the time we're "allowed" to tag 2.0.26. I agree wholeheartedly with
> whomever it was that said the only problem with our current system is the
> concatenation of the words "tag" and "roll" into a single "tag&roll"
> operation. We need to tag, test for just a little while to sort out the
> obvious problems that have just bitten 2.0.25, and THEN roll. Rolling
> before preliminary tests are done is silly. Half the time it means that
> we don't even build on some systems, which we could have found out about
> if we'd waited an hour to give people a chance to check. I agree with
> Bill that there needs to be a time limit on the duration between the tag
> and the roll... four days sounds good (if not excessive). That's what
> killed 2.0.23 and 2.0.24 in a way... they took too damned long. At least
> if we spread it out over a couple days, we don't twiddle our thumbs for a
> week after we realize that the tarball we just rolled is broken for some
> piddly-ass reason or another. Besides, if we wait a day or two between
> the tag and the roll, there would never BE a reason to release every day,
> so that problem just vanishes for free.
+1. Couldn't say it better myself. I would say a 48 hour window from
tag to roll would work out best. Doing a tag and a roll at the same
time isn't good. I think Roy's point was that the RM and the
development community should perform some sanity tests before rolling
it, but after tagging.
FWIW, John Sachs committed a test to httpd-test for the content-type of
a 404 message. So, if you use httpd-test, we won't get bit by this
same problem in the future. Any httpd committer already has access,
so they should feel free to add tests. (Do subscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] though...) -- justin
