httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <>
Subject 2.1 repository?
Date Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:47:28 GMT
Okay, now that OtherBill weighed in, I guess I'd like to start on
the 2.1 branch.  Now, how to achieve this?

I think housing a branch under the httpd-2.0 CVS repository isn't
ideal for several reasons:

- As OtherBill pointed out, HEAD must remain 2.0.
- Our past strategy seems to have been that we create separate
  repositories for each minor bump. 
- If we ignore this and still branch for 2.1, that means we have 2.1
  under the httpd-2.0 repository.  Can I say "ick" loud enough?
- Therefore, I think we should create a httpd-2.1 repository.

And, I'd like to seriously consider using Subversion rather than CVS.
To me, it makes a lot of sense to switch to Subversion now rather
than later.  If we do start on a model where we 'branch early and
often,' Subversion can handle the branching in a much better way
than CVS can (and more scalable to boot).

Since one of the primary matters in this 2.1 proposal is a re-org of
certain directories, we can handle moving files without losing
revision history.  Something that is painful to do in CVS.

I've used Subversion enough and I believe it is certainly up to
handling our needs.  If you haven't seen it yet, check out:

Of course, I volunteer to maintain the server on icarus (I already
have the relevant permissions to do so).  

I'm not saying that we have to use Subversion, but I think it is
definitely worth considering if we go to a new repos.  -- justin

View raw message