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 21:55:03 GMT
--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