httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <>
Subject Re: Voting Results
Date Thu, 07 Dec 1995 16:23:21 GMT
> At 11:19 AM 12/7/95 +0000, you wrote:
> >Results for the vote on the version split:
> >
> >Ben     +1
> >Brian   +1
> >Alexei  +1
> >Randy   +1
> >Aram    +1
> >
> >The vote is therefore carried. Apache will split into two versions, 1.0.x, and
> >1.1<letter><number>. As I mentioned before, my preference is for 'b'
as the
> >letter (unless we use 'p' for patchlevel).
> I like the 'p' for patchlevel idea better.   
> >
> >The next issue to be decided is whether we use CVS to maintain Apache. I
> >suggest we start experimenting before making any further decisions. I am
> >setting up a CVS system here, I'll report on progress. For now, continuing
> >with the patch and vote system will have to do...
> Don't we still have to do this for people to see it?

Well, sort of, yes, but I imagine it will be a more fluid system. The whole
point of using something like CVS is that all patches would _immediately_ apply
to the "current" release, but could still be backed out later. Presumably the
voting would apply only to snapshot releases (and these may have to be branch
versions to allow patches to be taken out [for example, if they are buggy but
_will_ ultimately be included]).

Of course, you don't want to allow any T, D or H to use the CVS Repository, so
I suppose this is going to get political (sigh).

Patches by non-core members (to borrow the FreeBSD terminology) would have to
either be picked up by a core member and incorporated, or go through a voting
session (and then picked up by a core member).

Hmm ... I can see this might cause some headaches. Who will be core members?
What will the criteria be? I can't imagine that it will work as a free-for-all;
the good programmers will get totally pissed off with correcting the less-good
programmers' bugs, for starters.

A (longish) question for CVS experts: one of the advantages of the current
system of patching is that dodgy, controversial or complex patches get
reviewed, and often amended, before being incorporated in the main code. This
process can take quite a while. The equivalent method in CVS is to create a
branch for the patch (I think!) - in practise is this easy enough to work?
That is, if someone says "I intend to add an XYZ module, but it'll take a month
and will probably break everything while I get it working" so we create a
branch for XYZ, when we decide that it is cool to add to the main branch, how
difficult is it to do, in practise?



Ben Laurie                  Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435
Freelance Consultant        Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
and Technical Director      Email:
A.L. Digital Ltd,           URL:
London, England.

View raw message