Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > IMHO, that's not very good. Ian (somewhat assisted by Aaron and > myself via IRC) had problems getting the roll right. That was partly > due to bad docs. Partly due to none of us had done this before (I > don't think any of us were around when the httpd-2.0 RM procedures > were discussed). Partly due to the fact that Ian doesn't have a > daedalus account to post it. So, I think it needs to be posted > where *developers* can get at it. > > Ian was hesitant to bump to 2.0.32 because he was under the > impression that it was not permitted to bump so close to a previous > tag. He was the RM, so it was his call. > > In the past, Greg Ames has emailed the tarball (or a private link) > to people. I think it'd be better to post it to dev@httpd. If we > can't trust our subscribers, then perhaps we need a committers-only > list where we can privately post it so that we can ensure that we > don't have a dud tarball, but not seen by lurkers. -- justin >
Unless we have some way of "guaranteing(sp?)" that the tarball in question isn't available to the rank-and-file (*duck* :) ) and just to those who understand the situation, then I agree that the risk is reduced. But placing the tarball anyplace public, means that the cat is out of the bag. If this means we need a developers only protected area for tarball testing, then I agree. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
