httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <>
Subject Re: 2.1 repository?
Date Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:43:30 GMT
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:27:18AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:47:28AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > - As OtherBill pointed out, HEAD must remain 2.0.
> Maybe HEAD should be the development trunk, while we branch off
> minor (and patch) revisions for stabalization.

I was referring to OtherBill's earlier comment today when he said:

>(leaving 2.0 as head, so nobody following older checkout instructions to
>grab the now-current version have a 'surprize' in store.)

I tend to find myself agreeing with him on this.  And, because I
think it is very counter-intuitive if I check out httpd-2.0 and get
"2.1" - something isn't right there.

> Well, not exactly. It seems to be more based on the number of years
> we'll be working on that repository. I'd rather see us only create
> new repos for major revisions, then for feature revisions (aka minor
> bumps, like 2.0-->2.1 for the auth stuff) then we just do a cvs branch.

Look at all of the repositories we created that are still left


The apache-apr and apache-nspr repositories were fairly short-lived.
I wasn't around when they were created, so perhaps the intention
really was that they would be the 'next big thing.'

> > - 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?
> That's just for us, who cares?

Nope - any developers have to deal with this to.  I think it's
general badness.

If it were called httpd-2, I'd be okay, but not httpd-2.0.

> > - Therefore, I think we should create a httpd-2.1 repository.
> -0.5 Simply for the reason that I see us working on 2.1 for 4 months, then
> continuing on to 2.2 for the next medium-big feature change.

Which is partly why I think we should move to Subversion -
repeated merges or not.

> A strong (non veto) -1 until subversion is 1.0 GA. Although I'd really
> like to see us using Subversion, I don't think we can afford to have
> any problems with the httpd project's code repositories.

Subversion has been self-hosting for a year now with zero data loss.
I'm not concerned.

> Yup, I agree, but that's something we're going to have to live with
> just a little longer, methinks.

I'm merely stating that we don't have to.  Especially considering
the first order of business in a (proposed) 2.1 would be moving
files around.  -- justin

View raw message