httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sander Striker" <stri...@apache.org>
Subject RE: ab.c versionining was Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/support ab.c
Date Wed, 01 May 2002 07:18:24 GMT
> From: dirkx@covalent.net [mailto:dirkx@covalent.net]
> Sent: 30 April 2002 23:42

>> I'd like to see either the seperate version for ab
>> patch reverted _or_ ab moved out of the tree.  I
>> feel very strongly about only having 'one'* version
>> scheme to care about in the httpd tree.
> 
> +0 	to move it out of the tree.
> 
> +0	to restore the 1.3 versioning situation.
> 
> -1	on anything which
> 	-> shows in the output of AB of versions of AB which -can-
> 	   be compared different version numbers
> 	or
> 	-> which shows in the output of AB identical version numbers
> 	   even though the results cannot be compared.

This double veto* implies that it must be 'just right'.  This is incredibly
restrictive and I'm not even sure it will hold.  If we expose the apr version#
that will only mean that ab versions are dependend on apr versions instead
of httpd versions.  Giving ab its own versioning scheme (ie, not include the
apr/httpd version number) is a bad call IMO.  That will require apr developers
to bump the version of ab when they touch anything used in ab (not cool).
 
> if the above implies moving out of the tree; then +1 for that. If the
> above can be accomplished by having the APR version # exposed or something
> simpler - great. Otherwise - move it out.

Well, I'm -1 on the current situation.  I have the feeling most people
want to keep ab in the tree, which implies reverting the change.

Sander

*) The second one is a given.  That's what we had; we always had different
   version numbers.


Mime
View raw message