Message-ID: <19980111104900.38319@covalent.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 10:49:00 -0600
From: Randy Terbush <randy@covalent.net>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980109112705.22374A-100000@saga12.Stanford.EDU>
 <34B8D9E8.3A3FB437@algroup.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <34B8D9E8.3A3FB437@algroup.co.uk>;
 from Ben Laurie on Sun, Jan 11, 1998 at 02:40:40PM +0000
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

On Sun, Jan 11, 1998 at 02:40:40PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Alexei Kosut wrote:
> > Another thing to consider, given the recent discussions, might be the
> > following:
> > 
> > telnet dev.apache.org
> > cd /export/home/cvs
> > mv apache apache-1.2
> > mv apachen apache-1.3
> > cp -Rp apache-1.3 apache-2.0
> > 
> > And then assign the apache-1.3 module to a real release manager so we can
> > finish it up and ship it out, and let people play with apache-2.0 all they
> > want?
> 
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I think this is a good
> idea...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ben.

I would also like to see us do this. We (I) have argued in the past that
these additional repositories have over taxed us, but I have changed 
my mind. This would clearly eliminate the conflicts of wanting to
commit changes to a tree that we are trying to release. 

Lets vote to do this and get 1.3 out.

+1