apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r209046 - /apr/apr/branches/1.0.x/file_io/os2/open.c
Date Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:53:45 GMT
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 09:17:46AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On 7/6/05, Brian Havard <brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:15:51 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > 
> > >I'm not asking about Brian's patch, but how we are maintaining
> > >1.0.x/1.1.x branches...
> > >
> > >Can we declare these 'dead'?  For all intents and purposes, anyone
> > >building 1.2.x has an ABI compatible flavor that can be substituted
> > >for a 1.0.x or 1.1.x version, right?
> > 
> > Good question. I'm not really clear on what the state of the different
> > branches is. I'm just committing all the way back to 0.9.x to make sure the
> > next httpd-2.0.x gets these bug fixes.
> 
> I'm fuzzy when it comes to practical matters, such as who (if anybody)
> is the benificiary of those other branches.  Aren't those theoretical
> beneficiaries better off in the long run if we concentrate our efforts
> on a fewer number of branches?   (But we have to have a versioning
> policy that allows the fewer number of branches without slowing down
> the implementation of new features unnecessarily.)

Maintaining simple fixes on a "stable" 1.1.x branch is useful since it 
means 1.1.x patch releases can be released on a whim regardless of the 
state of the trunk.  I share the general apathy about the the 1.0.x 
branch.

joe

Mime
View raw message