httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkra...@apache.org>
Subject Re: karma and cvs commit messages
Date Sun, 24 Nov 2002 07:30:20 GMT
--On Saturday, November 23, 2002 3:32 PM -0800 "Roy T. Fielding" 
<fielding@apache.org> 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

Mime
View raw message