httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>
Subject Re: [STATUS] Wed Jun 4 16:04:54 EDT 1997
Date Thu, 05 Jun 1997 14:19:45 GMT
> Marc Slemko wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Randy Terbush wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm willing to do the branch and roll, but would like to read 
> > > proper procedure from a knowledgable CVS person before doing this 
> > > for the release.
> > 
> > I'm not sure we should branch.  Someone brought up the suggestion of using
> > using a seperate module for 2.0 source and many agreed I think.
> > 
> > CVS doesn't really know about branches, they are just an illusion.  It can
> > be quite confusing, especially for people that don't use them much.
> > Having it branched makes it far easier to compare source between 1.2 and
> > 2.0 code, but at the expense of making working with 1.2 code much more
> > difficult.
> > 
> > Personally, I would just as well have the tree branch and keep it
> > together, but I probably have a better understanding of CVS branches than
> > some...
> > 
> 
> I think that the way it was done with the 1.1.3 -> 1.2 branching
> was perfect and I see no reason to change it.
> 
> I vote for branching as before. For those who don't wnat to
> worry about 1.2 anymore, they will see no change at all.
> And, no matter what we think right now, 2.0 will grow out of
> 1.2 code... does anyone really foresee a total rewrite of the
> code from scratch? I don't.
> 

I agree. This is what I what I tried to convey in my previous reply 
to Dean's mail.

So if I understand correctly, to create the branch as we did for 
1.1 we do 'cvs tag -b -rAPACHE_1_2' during the tagging stage?





Mime
View raw message