On Tuesday 13 November 2001 11:28 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > From: "Greg Ames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:56 PM > > > Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > > I know that we can't touch the 2.0.28-alpha tarball, but I seem > > > to recall someone saying we could touch the next-level tarball > > > (i.e. -beta). > > > > hmmmm...that's an interesting idea. I like it! I would bump the tag on > > that file, do the PITA dance with the CHANGES file, probably do a little > > testing, re-roll, rename the tarballs as beta. What do others think? I > > could note that this happened in the CHANGES file since I have to mess > > with it anyway. > > I'd suggest that you checkout on APACHE-2_0_28, tag as APACHE-2_0_28_ALPHA > for historical reasons, then we can add APACHE-2_0_28_BETA, etc.
No, there is 2.0.28, period. There isn't a 2.0.28-alpha and 2.0.28-beta code base. There is one 2.0.28 codebase. You could have different versions if the alpha/beta distinction was in the code, but it isn't. It is only in the tarball name. Ryan ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
