[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: 1.6.18 tarballs up for testing/signing

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:04:19 +0200

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 01:17:17PM -0700, Blair Zajac wrote:
> On 03/24/2012 03:13 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:54:13PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >>Since this is a 1.6.x release there are -dep tarballs
> >>which should also be signed by those who test them.
> >>I've run a test build with these dependencies on a Debian Linux system.
> >
> >I made a slight mistake by putting APR 1.4.6 into the -deps tarball
> >while the 1.6.x test suite isn't prepared to deal with the APR hash
> >ordering changes.
> >
> >Should we re-roll the deps tarball with APR 1.4.5? I'd call this a
> >packaging bug and re-use the existing version number. Nobody but
> >myself has signed the -deps tarball yet.
>
> Don't we have a hard and fast policy on this? Version numbers are
> cheap.

Depends. The current rules are:

"If a release or candidate release needs to be quickly re-issued due to
some non-code problem (say, a packaging glitch), it's okay to reuse the
same name, as long as the tarball hasn't been blessed by signing yet.
But if it has been uploaded to the standard distribution area with signatures,
or if the re-issue was due to a change in code a user might run, then the
old name must be tossed and the next name used."
http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/releasing.html#name-reuse

IANAL, but how this applies to the situation at hand seems to be a matter
of interpretation.
Nobody except me has signed -deps yet -- does my own signature count towards
the signatureS mentioned above? It's not a non-code problem since we're
changing APR's code in -deps, but then again it's not a problem in *our*
code. Except the test suite code, but we weren't going to make it work
with APR 1.4.6 anyway given the lack of related changes for 1.6.18.

Maybe this is not important and I'll just leave this as it is and
mention the problem as a known test suite issue with APR 1.4.6 in
the release notes.

> Also, do we need to have matching the svn and deps tarball
> version numbers, so we could bump the deps but leave svn alone?

I think historically the numbers have been linked and we would be
confusing users if we changed this.
Received on 2012-03-25 13:05:02 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.