Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <3C453D01.7080705@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:42:41 -0500 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stipe Tolj CC: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Apache 1.3.22-3 ready to go?! References: <3C43EF02 DOT 239CC44A AT wapme-systems DOT de> <20020115120344 DOT T2015 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3C440FC8 DOT BDBCB655 AT wapme-systems DOT de> <20020115122535 DOT V2015 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20020115133314 DOT Y2015 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3C45382F DOT 921ADB4B AT wapme-systems DOT de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stipe Tolj wrote: > BTW, is this going to be released then as package apache-1.3.22-4 or > do we version back to -1? -- I guess users may be confused and may > assume there have been 3 previous releases? Anyway I vote for -4, > otherwise we would break the "respect revision numbers in any case" > rule. -4 is fine. We skip release numbers all the time (or at least I do). I might go thru two or three -REL numbers that are purely for internal use and testing, before I ever let anybody on the net see it. --Chuck