From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 1:12 PM
> No that isn't what this is based on. It is based on the fact that
> tagging the tree with two different versions within two days discourages
> people from testing. If I roll a release every few days, why should
> anybody test them, because they know that another release will be made,
> which will obsolete what they are testing.
++1. If we are going to do that to testers, let's just have every-six-hour
tarballs sitting out for download in perpetuity.
---
Joe: Hey, which apache should I download?
Mike: Well, as long as you are on Solaris, that 3 Mar 2003 tarball worked
really well, but you might want to go back to the 2nd if you are trying
to build on Linux - that one didn't work for me.
---
Roy was dead on... You tag infreqently enough that folks respect that some
good thought went into releasing that version. Build snafus are negligable,
and really not worth arguing over - just fix em and release.
However, Ryan, your change that dropped out the supplimental strings (actually
assigning server-strings of -alpha/-beta/-gold, and the two digit subversion)
really hosed our ability to assure a user that yea - that is the -alpha, and
you really needed the -beta before you can build on, say, Netware.
And _not_ to Ryan;
Anywho - this has been argued to death. Whatever the roll 'n release docs
say on httpd.apache.org/dev is what I'll follow, these discussions are SO
utterly nonproductive. Heck - aren't we here 'cause we like to code?
Bill
