Quoting Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
-0.5 to using odd for stable, and even for development
The model of parallel stable and development branches is similar to
numerous other projects, including the Linux kernel and Perl, except that
the meaning of the sub-version numbers is **reversed** in
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
* Consider using the Linux versioning system... stable release is 2.x where
x 0 and x == even. Developmemt release is 2.x where x is odd.
+100.
The Apache HTTPd versioning system has been plenty confusing to
people not following the httpd related ASF
I just caught up on the torrent of emails to this list. :-)
My understanding of the major issues which may aid Apache2 adoption:
- avoid breaking user configuration files between releases
- avoid breaking 3rd party modules between releases
- present clearer meaning of version numbers to those
Hello,
Am I the only person confused by this?
WRSTABLE RELEASES, 2.{odd}.{revision}
WR
WRAll even numbered releases will be considered stable revisions.
WRDEVELOPMENT RELEASES, 2.{even}.{revision}
WR-
WRAll even
Quoting Bojan Smojver [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This would achieve two goals within the user/developer community:
Concentrate Bojan... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Got it! Five goals :-)
Bojan
APACHE 2.x ROADMAP
==
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/10/01 19:13:06 $]
INTRODUCTION
The Apache HTTP Server project must balance two competing and disjoint
objectives; maintain stable code for third party authors, distributors and
most importantly users so that bug and
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
One bit concerns me, we cannot state that we will break MMN compat
between security fixes and modules are always forward compatible
within a version (e.g. 2.1).
I agree that is a conflict, and I can't really decide which way I favor.
It seems attractive to say
My user only comments sprinkled below...
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 02:10, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
STABLE RELEASES, 2.{odd}.{revision}
All even numbered releases will be considered stable revisions. That means;
You really meant odd in the above sentence,
On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 12:10, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
APACHE 2.x ROADMAP
==
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/10/01 19:13:06 $]
[...rest of the roadmap deleted...]
If I may make 3 suggestions.
1) If we want to match the kernel/perl versioning system, then make 2.2
the stable
On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 12:48, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 11:34 AM 10/17/2002, Jeff Stuart wrote:
On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 12:10, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
APACHE 2.x ROADMAP
==
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/10/01 19:13:06 $]
[...rest of the roadmap deleted...]
If I
At 11:34 AM 10/17/2002, Jeff Stuart wrote:
On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 12:10, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
APACHE 2.x ROADMAP
==
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/10/01 19:13:06 $]
[...rest of the roadmap deleted...]
If I may make 3 suggestions.
1) If we want to match the kernel/perl
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BINARY PACKAGES
---
All emphasis will be focused on providing binary packages of stable release
versions. While they are a volunteer effort, and the project makes them
available only as a convenience and not on demand, the project
At 05:47 PM 10/17/2002, Andrew Ho wrote:
I personally think maintaining stable/dev branches is a fine idea. I like
the x.0 rationale for keeping even numbered versions development, and it
also fits with Apache 1.3.x... but I also think it could be confusing if
many other open source projects use
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
With the simultaneous release of Apache 2.1-stable and Apache
2.2-development, the Apache HTTP Server project is moving to a more
predictable stable code branch, while opening the development to forward
progress without concern for breaking the
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
STABLE RELEASES, 2.{odd}.{revision}
All even numbered releases will be considered stable revisions. That
means;
One way to summarize this would be: upgrading from a stable release to
the next minor number should be painless:
At 12:03 PM 10/17/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BINARY PACKAGES
---
All emphasis will be focused on providing binary packages of stable release
versions. While they are a volunteer effort, and the project makes them
available only as a
Justin, I think this answers most of your questions?
Comments:
* +1, this is an extremely good start to drafting the rules for working on
stable releases. I could quibble with a point or two but this captures the
spirit nicely.
* Activity in the stable release would be limited to security and
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
APACHE 2.x ROADMAP
==
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/10/01 19:13:06 $]
In general I think this is very positive and sends the right message
to the user community... I separated any significant concerns into a
previous post :) I'm
STABLE RELEASES, 2.{odd}.{revision}
All even numbered releases will be considered stable revisions. That
means;
One way to summarize this would be: upgrading from a stable release to
the next minor number should be painless:
config.nice
At 12:32 PM 10/17/2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
One way to summarize this would be: upgrading from a stable release to
the next minor number should be painless:
config.nice
make
make install
apachectl restart
That implies:
- No non-backwards compatible config changes (runtime or
Bojan Smojver wrote:
Quoting Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
-0.5 to using odd for stable, and even for development
The model of parallel stable and development branches is similar to
numerous other projects, including the Linux kernel and Perl, except that
the meaning of the sub-version numbers
21 matches
Mail list logo
