Mads Toftum wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 02:50:00PM -0700, Sriram Natarajan wrote: > >> As I understand, Apache HTTPd community seems to follow a convention >> some where along the lines of >> >> 1. The product is released with major.minor.revision release values. >> With Apache HTTPd 2.2.4, major number is 2, minor is 2 and revision is >> 4. Even numbered release is considered to be 'stable'. >> >> > You misunderstand it partially. The even number ~ stable only applies to > "minor" - 2.0.X and 2.2.X are stable branches and since about 2.0.50, > they have also run with an ABI compat requirement inside a stable > branch (such that any module that runs on 2.2.X should be fine for any > value of X - while it isn't guaranteed to run on 2.0.X). > Any confusion you may have had about 2.2.uneven being unstable could > have come from the policy of tagging for release and if it proves to > need further changes, then a new tag will be created for testing before > deciding to release. So some tags will never be released (as has > recently happened for 2.2.5 and 2.0.60 that will never go out as > releases). > Thanks for the correction and the insight. Much appreciated. > >> Whether we ship or add support to bundle multiple minor releases or a >> single apache 2 release (like the way how linux has successfully done >> so) is probably the big question. I guess, the answer to this question >> also depends on how much is the incompatibility between minor releases >> and how many customers very much want to have multiple minor releases. >> >> > Given the differences between 2.2 and 2.0, I think both need to be > available for quite some time (as some vendors of proprietary modules > still haven't made the jump). > > Hmm. 2.0 OpenSolaris has dropped 2.0 long time back and WebStack community never intended to add 2.0 support . The point of discussion is only around should we either add provision to support multiple minor releases like 2.2 and 2.4 or simply release the most stable version of the latest minor release (2.2 for now and another 10 months later it will be 2.4 only). >> To wrap up this discussion, we probably need data on the following topics >> >> 1) What is the level of incompatibility between minor releases. Based on >> Apache 2.0 and Apache 2.2 >> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/upgrading.html >> >> It seems to me that the incompatibility between these minor releases is >> not very much a big deal and can be handled with a post install script. >> Do you guys agree ? >> >> > Absolutely - with the ABI compat rule, there will be no > incompatibilities. > Then why do you recommend to ship multiple minor releases ? > >> Also, I am curious as to how Apache SMF scripts will work / look when we >> ship multiple minor releases or will we start shipping multiple SMF >> scripts to accommodate multiple minor releases as well. >> >> > Picking the version by setting a property seems like a simple way or > possibly as part of the FMRI. > > +1
thanks sriram -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/webstack-discuss/attachments/20070906/e5ceaf2f/attachment.html>
