Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.2.20050119124058.05f39410@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:43:14 -0600
To: Paul Querna <chip@force-elite.com>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: Branching 1.1.x
Cc: dev@apr.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <41EEA4CC.3000507@force-elite.com>
References: <41EDFCE8.40507@force-elite.com>
 <6.2.0.14.2.20050119114904.039d16a0@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
 <41EEA4CC.3000507@force-elite.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:19 PM 1/19/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>  svn cp .../trunk .../branches/1.1
>>Or if we decided not to use trunk, we can also
>>  svn cp .../tags/1.1.0 .../branches/1.1
>
>^^ that was my plan. (branches/1.1.x/)

The only question you hadn't answered, do we need trunk = 1.2
today, or can trunk remain 1.1.x until a feature patch drives
us to split 1.1.x from 1.2?  I ask because changes to head
would likely be desirable for 1.1.1 until we really drive to
release 1.2.0.


>>One final commentary, is it really necessary to keep trying
>>to sync version numbers of apr and apr-util?  E.g. apr-iconv
>>hasn't changed, it shouldn't need a bump/release at all.
>
>I don't think it is a requirement for minor point releases. but it makes sense in this case since both have had major additions/changes since 1.0.x.

Agreed today, and apr-iconv shouldn't be pushed at this time,
I don't think.  [I'll have to look.]

Bill