httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <>
Subject Re: karma and cvs commit messages
Date Sun, 24 Nov 2002 20:34:45 GMT
Agreed 100%

This whole episode stinks...


> --On Saturday, November 23, 2002 3:32 PM -0800 "Roy T. Fielding" 
> <> wrote:
> >> Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
> >> a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
> >> the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
> >> fix that so I can commit to the new "httpd" repository directly?
> >
> > Why the heck was that done?  Too many things get screwed over
> > when you change a module name in cvs.
> Yeah, exactly.  We had zero discussion on this change.  And, it's a 
> bad change, IMHO.  People shouldn't be making such drastic changes 
> without some sort of discussion!
> IMHO, httpd-2.0 must always be the definitive repository for Apache 
> HTTP Server 2.0.  If we physically split the 2.1/(2.2/3.0) 
> repositories, we can then change the name (please discuss this 
> first).   Note that 2.0 shouldn't be housed there, since it once 
> authoritatively lived in httpd-2.0.  ISTR the big snafu when Ken 
> 'renamed' the httpd-docs repository.  That should have warned us that 
> such moves are a horrible idea.
> I know Subversion has lots of drawbacks (I know of at least 2 
> committers who will veto it outright), but remember that branches in 
> CVS kill performance (really due to the now anachronistic RCS format 
> and how it stores branches).  It's going to be a PITA 
> performance-wise if we have a long-lived CVS repository.  So, I think 
> there is a strong benefit to creating httpd-2.1 and then httpd-2.2 
> and so on.  I'm afraid by the time that we hit httpd 2.9 (say), we're 
> going to be in a world of hurt on the 'stable' branches due to CVS's 
> inability to scale with active branches.  -- justin

View raw message