httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Richards <p.richa...@elsevier.co.uk>
Subject Re: New mod_expires/mod_cern_meta
Date Tue, 20 Feb 1996 20:37:27 GMT
> From owner-new-httpd@hyperreal.com  Tue Feb 20 19:45:00 1996
> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 96 16:45 GMT
> From: drtr@ast.cam.ac.uk (David Robinson)
> To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
> Subject: Re: New mod_expires/mod_cern_meta
> 
> >Can someone explain the naming scheme for the two branches, what the
> >release plans for both are and which one the last patch round was for and
> >why all patches aren't going into the development tree since a bug fix
> >for 1.0.X should be a bug fix in 1.1.X too?
> 
> Two branches: 1.0 and 1.1.
> Current status: 1.0: terminated at 1.0.3. No further releases planned.
>                      No further patches accepted. (so far.)
>                 1.1: beta version 1.1b0.
> 
> >I'm just losing track and need to get on top of this quickly so I can
> >answer Ben's mail about what to commit to where.
> 
> I think you may have been confused by Andrew's message; _contrib_ people
> have to support two versions. The core group have finished with 1.0.
> 
>  David.

Have we? I'm not convinced that there will never be another 1.0.X release :-)

What about my other questions? If we really have given up on further
1.0.X patch fix releases then we can abandon the branch in cvs and just
start commiting everything to the development branch.

Should all patches to 1.0.3 therefore be merged with 1.1 patches and applied
then? Has anyone actually tried to do this?

Mime
View raw message