On Nov 28, 2005, at 6:13 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Nov 28, 2005, at 5:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: pquerna
Date: Mon Nov 28 17:53:31 2005
New Revision: 349582
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=349582&view=rev
Log:
Tag 2.2.0 from 2.1.10 tag to prepare for the 2.2.0 release
What? No, sorry, -1. Your vote was on releasing 2.1.10. You
should be
releasing 2.1.10 to the public as GA. 2.2.0 is different -- it
requires
new documentation and a new tarball, and thus new votes.
Our rules also say that we cannot release 2.1.10 as GA. The next
GA release should be called 2.2.0.
What rules are you talking about? GA just means it isn't alpha or
beta -- it
has nothing whatsoever to do with the version number. 2.2 is now our
STABLE
branch, not our GA branch.
I don't intend to release a 2.2.0 tarball without another vote.
They will be identical to the 2.1.10 tarballs, except for the
version number. (give me a few more minutes and they will be posted).
Please don't do that. Change the version to 2.0.0-dev and then give
people
like me time to go in and edit the documentation (which is kinda hard
for
me to do at the moment because fink blew away my svn install and I can't
build it any more). We have two weeks before ApacheCon, so there is
no rush.
In any case, we vote on complete source tarballs, not some
expectation of
a tag. There can't be any 2.2.0 release votes yet because it doesn't
exist
as a released tarball, nor can it exist until we have updated the docs.
If you have a better way to manage the once-every-3 year changeover
from development to stable branches, please share it.
This is exactly what I said I would do in the [vote] thread for
2.1.10.
No, it isn't -- you said that it was a vote to release 2.1.10. I
assumed
that meant you were going to bump the version number in CVS. There were
several people who said they were +1 on 2.1.10 and NOT 2.2.0, and our
voting guidelines have never allowed a release vote to take place before
the release was even prepared.
....Roy
