httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Bannert <>
Subject [VOTE] CVS organization (was Re: 2.1 Fallout; httpd v.s. httpd-2.0)
Date Mon, 25 Nov 2002 22:55:39 GMT
Come on guys; why does something as simple as this have to turn so 

Here's a proposal that I hope will make everyone happy:

1) we symlink httpd to httpd-2.0.
2) we announce that in 30 days we will have a flag day where all
    checkouts must start referencing "httpd" directly.
3) on the flag day, we remove the symlink, make an exact duplicate of
    "httpd-2.0" and name it "httpd", and then remove write access to
    the old httpd-2.0 repository (keeping it open for readonly).

Vote please:

[  ] +1 and I'll help with this.
[  ] +0 sounds good, sorry I can't help.
[  ] -0 sounds bad, but I can't help.
[  ] -1 sounds terrible, here's why ________ and here's my alternative 
_________ .


On Monday, November 25, 2002, at 01:55  PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> --On Monday, November 25, 2002 9:45 AM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." 
> <> wrote:
>> This whole 'cvs branches are evil' smacks of FUD.  Certainly some
>> operations are less than optimal.  But certainly things have
>> improved since folks experiences with branch-related bugs soured
>> them to the concept.
> They are evil in the sense that we jeopardize confusing both our users 
> and developers with the branches.  I don't believe we should rename 
> the CVS repository (orphaning httpd-2.0).  Even with your current 
> proposal, it would silently morph all httpd-2.0 working copies to 
> httpd (with implicit version 2.1).  I don't think that's fair to our 
> users who use CVS working copies.  Our obligation to them should be 
> that HEAD of httpd-2.0 contains, well, HEAD of httpd-2.0 not httpd > 3.9.
> I believe that the authoritative version of httpd-2.0 *must* remain in 
> the repository called 'httpd-2.0.'  I'm midly disturbed that it now 
> contains 2.1 (mainly because there was no prior discussion about how 
> to do the branching).  2.1 shouldn't be living in httpd-2.0 - I'd 
> prefer that we'd back that out and start a new repository with 2.1 
> rather than further corrupting the 2.0 repository.
> If you want to create an httpd module going forward, we could select 
> one that doesn't have a version number in it.  This would allow us to 
> have multiple concurrent branches in one repository - there would be 
> no contract as to what version is HEAD.  Yes, we lose the ability to 
> have contiguous history for this particular separation.  If we plan 
> wisely, that won't happen again.
> However, I firmly believe that prior decisions have restricted what we 
> can do with httpd-2.0.  httpd-2.0 must live.  We can't change that, 
> nor should we be placing httpd 2.1 in there implicitly.  Doing 
> anything else is to do harm to the very people we're trying to help by 
> imposing a versioning scheme.  -- justin

View raw message