httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: 2.1 Fallout; httpd v.s. httpd-2.0
Date Mon, 25 Nov 2002 06:45:19 GMT
Why do this? Do people really feel a strong enough need to scratch an itch
that they're willing to cause such grief? What will this gain us? I can't
see any big wins from this - only a lot of effort being expended to get us
where we are.

If we really, really need 2.1 then start a new repository. Call it anything
you like, with/without numbers, but don't change an active repository name
simply to satisfy an itch we don't all share or even recognise.

-1 to the move.
+1 to a new repository.

david

> Although I don't have the karma, I'll take the fallout and flak for
> coming up with the idea (although not the initial objection) that
> was raised for changing the repository's name from httpd-2.0
> to httpd.
>
> A couple folks have suggested we shouldn't use a branch for
> various reasons.  I mildly to strongly disagree with the reasons
> given.  Centralizing the history into a single repository is massive
> goodness.  Yes, with cvs this isn't an optimal and performant
> solution, but it has worked just fine for Tomcat.  We aren't speaking
> of multiple oodles of branches, only one every blue moon (every
> six months to a year, perhaps.)  If and when we convert to SVN,
> and the branch conversion bug is addressed and long gone, the
> entire history of the project since 2.0.0 will be available in a single
> place for all to review.  That, I believe, is goodness.
>
> So, I then realized how badly this f*s things up without advance
> notice and consideration to all the places (cvs commit messages,
> viewcvs, et al) and folks (with active checkouts) that need to prepare
> for the change.  So thank you Roy for flipping the switch back to
> 'normal' operations.
>
> So, proceeding on the idea that 2.X lives in a single repository, (which
> was voted for a month with absolute concensus) where can we go from
> here, and how do we have to prepare?
>
> Obviously, infrastructure needs to be involved, including apmail, viewcvs,
> and other things I don't recognize at the moment.  End users need time
> to update their cvs checkouts to the new canonical location.  Lets say
> 45 days from the beginning of the changeover, with a headline in the
> top level httpd.apache.org index.html and details in /dev/.
>
> So when we begin the changeover, how do we avoid becoming hopelessly
> confused?  I believe we begin with warning commiters about 15 days before,
> then 5, then 2, then 1 day before the change.
>
> On that day, httpd-2.0 becomes httpd.  All cvs apmail and viewcvs
resources
> are redirected at that time.  httpd-2.0 becomes a module alias, WITH NO
> COMMIT PRIVILAGES for any users.  This way we don't have some
> scattershot history of httpd-2.0 and httpd commits.
>
> Now, only committers were affected by that change, because everyone
> can still check out httpd-2.0.  Now over the next month and a half, we
> encourage folks who follow the news that the repository name has changed.
> We encourage them to change over in a short time, just as our friends
> in Europe had to exchange their money not so long ago.
>
> Finally (before 2.2, certainly) this change becomes effective.  The alias
> to httpd-2.0 cvs repository disappears.  Users scrambling to find out
> what broke should be greeted again at httpd.apache.org/ and /dev/ to
> news of how to fix it.
>
> Ken's change for htdocs was really a pita because existing checkouts
> were simply broken.  This isn't the case for this schema.  You update
> when you need to commit (and the system's informed you you cannot
> commit.)  Planned chaos rather than unanticipated chaos.
>
> Folks, any other observations besides apmail, viewcvs and the other
> aspects we must consider before we contemplate a rename?
>
> Bill
>
>


Mime
View raw message