httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <>
Subject Re: 2.1 Fallout; httpd v.s. httpd-2.0
Date Mon, 25 Nov 2002 06:42:36 GMT
--On Monday, November 25, 2002 12:21 AM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." 
<> wrote:

> OUTCH!  The point to the 2.x history is that we DON'T lose the
> history! I'm guessing I was one of only 5 committers with an rsync
> of  1.2 when the chunk security hole bit us.  History is very, very
> precious in a project this large.

Um, the history is still available via CVS - just at a different 
repos.  I know that I did a checkout of apache-1.2 and also went to 
ViewCVS to track down the chunking commit.  The history is still 
there - it's just disjoint.  Our group precedent here is clearly to 
create a new repository rather than using CVS branches.  (And, even 
now, I still think it's the right decision.)

> Only if we have many branches; we propose very few.

I think this is where you and I diverge.  I'm taking a very long 
perspective in that over time, we would have many branches.  For 2.1, 
it might not be bad to have them coexist.  But, in two years, we'll 
probably be at 2.8/3.0 (if not beyond).  That's a stable release 
every six months which is about our plan, IIRC.  I don't plan for our 
CVS repositories to last that long.  -- justin

View raw message