httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/include ap_release.h
Date Sat, 23 Nov 2002 06:15:06 GMT
At 06:50 AM 11/22/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> writes:
>> wrowe       2002/11/21 18:08:42
>>   Modified:    include  ap_release.h
>>   Log:
>>     Branch tag APACHE_2_0_BRANCH now contains Apache 2.0 development.
>>     Persist cvs HEAD as Apache 2.1.
>>     After discussion at AC, a number of individuals including Sander, Will,
>>     Justin and Rich will begin reverting the appropriate changes from the
>>     APACHE_2_0_BRANCH, while continuing their documentation and development
>>     of the Authorization reorganization on this branch.
>Does "reverting the appropriate changes" mean "decide which stuff
>now tagged APACHE_2_0_BRANCH should be deferred until 2.1" or does it
>mean "as fixes are committed to HEAD, decide which of them should be
>available in Apache 2.0" or does it mean something else?

No.  After Sander's comments, APACHE_2_0_BRANCH is now from CVS
head.  We can selectively revert those changes that break compatibility,
introduce potential buggyness, or simply aren't complete.

One of the HUGEST hassles is the effort to choose month-old patches
to backport into 2.0.  This was barely on folks' radar.  Now that it's done,
we can all be alert to those patches we are committing that we also want
to backport.

I don't want to see maintenance die on the 2.0 branch, and as Sander
pointed out, most of the patches this last month were 'goodness'(sm).


>Shall I start a section in STATUS for votes on whether to move various
>fixes in HEAD back to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH?  hiroyuki hanai's fix to
>listen.c would be the first candidate AFAICT.

Since we split at 2002/11/21 18:08:42, please start taking names and
kicking ass to previous patches that don't belong on the 2.0 branch.

And looking forward, please remember that the 2_0_BRANCH is CTR,
so you should commit to CVS HEAD and then ask for a vote, or take
a vote on applying to both branches (simply mention you want the patch
applied to both 2.0 and 2.1.)  If it's voted on first, we will apply to both
when it's committed.


View raw message