httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <dgau...@arctic.org>
Subject Re: [STATUS] Wed Jun 4 16:04:54 EDT 1997
Date Thu, 05 Jun 1997 09:45:16 GMT
Well those who want to work on the 1.2 branch can just "cvs checkout -r
APACHE_1_2 -d apache-1.2 apache" and as long as they don't "cvs update -A" 
(which they won't unless they understand what they're doing ;) then cvs
handles it behind your back.  Or am I forgetting something? 

As long as someone who understands branches does the -j merging we should
be fine.  Oh yeah and the same group of someones has to create the branch
in the first place.

I'd kinda like it to stay in the same repository... but I can deal if it
isn't. 

Unless there's a concern that we'll be doing a lot of development on both
branches?  Is that it?  If so then for performance reasons two
repositories are necessary. 

Dean

On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, 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...
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message