At 03:32 PM 8/1/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote: > > >ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33 > > > > > > Modified: build httpd_roll_release > > > Log: > > > we need apr-iconv now > > > > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the folks > > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with > > the current apr and apr-util trees.. > >I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release >script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change >doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they >can release httpd.
Amazing that we tag APR at all, no? > I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull >apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems. I >understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is still >a bad solution. Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for iconv. But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be tagged with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an rtag, that would be fine too. Bill
