"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote: > > From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 2:00 PM > > > On Tuesday 13 November 2001 11:28 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > > > > > 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.
> I agree, no code twists after alpha tag until we get a decent versioning schema back. > We know this one isn't GA quality (a much better beta, but no GA.) So it's pointless > to fight over bitty fixes once we rolled the alpha tarball. As it turns out, the docs/conf/httpd-*.conf files also have post-tag changes. So changing/re-tagging them in cvs would be as complex as changing the code. How about this? comment out the ErrorDocument 401 lines in the docs/conf/httpd-*.conf files, along with a comment line or two saying that a patch exists, inside the tarballs. Re-roll, re-sign, rename as beta, leave cvs alone. Otherwise, we probably should document the bug somewhere. If "somewhere" is a file inside the tarball, why not just make the change in the sample configs and be done with it? Greg
