On 21 May 2001, Jeff Trawick wrote: > "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think we have a good shot at a beta candidate. I plan to tag the tree > > early this afternoon (ET) unless I hear objections. > > I think it is fine for that tarball to go out as a beta as long as we > make a patch available for srclib/apr-util/Makefile.in to use with RH > 7.1 (and whatever other platforms may be affected). Whoah. We have a tarball that we know doesn't build on RH 7.1 at the very least. That is not a beta tarball. That would be an alpha tarball. Release it as an alpha, at least that's my vote. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... Graham Leggett
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... Greg Stein
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... Graham Leggett
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... Greg Stein
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for ... Graham Leggett
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta... Graham Leggett
- .Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate Jeff Trawick
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate rbb
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate Greg Stein
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidat... Bill Stoddard
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta cand... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- RE: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate Ian Holsman
- Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate Graham Leggett
- RE: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate GOMEZ Henri
