Subject: Re: branched tree
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 18:41:30 +0100 (BST)
From: Ben Laurie <ben@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970609110155.6841A-100000@alive.znep.com> from
 "Marc Slemko" at Jun 9, 97 11:07:25 am
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <9706091841.aa06400@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> If we are planning a 1.3 release, I am 100% against anything except
> critical bugfixes going into 1.2 because it simply leads to too many
> trees.

Agreed.

> 
> If NT is going to be either in 1.2 after seperate betas or a seperate
> 1.2-NT, 1.2 should get any bugfixes that are easy to bring back.

Please - let's just call 1.2+NT 1.3. As Randy says, 1.2-NT isn't a version
number.

> 
> Note that pcs's commits seem to have something messed up... either it is
> his setup locally or a branch thing.  Hmm, I get the same thing.  Will
> have to take a look when I get a chance...

Nah - this happens every time we branch. The script that does the diff doesn't
get <oldversion> and <newversion>, it just gets <newversion>. For the first
patch in a branch, subtracting one from the final digit doesn't do the job!

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie                Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435  Email: ben@algroup.co.uk
Freelance Consultant and  Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director        URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
A.L. Digital Ltd,         Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org)
London, England.          Apache-SSL author