httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: 2.1 Fallout; httpd v.s. httpd-2.0
Date Mon, 25 Nov 2002 06:21:29 GMT
At 11:36 PM 11/24/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

>No, it'd still be the case - an update isn't sufficient.  I'd have to get a brand-new
checkout of httpd because my local working copy would refer to httpd-2.0.  At best, I might
be able to run a script to tweak my CVS directories.

Correct; you couldn't commit back from your current tree, a simple .pl script
could fix your CVS/Repository files.

>I'd prefer that we start 2.1 on a new repository that doesn't have "2.0" in the name.
 Yes, that means losing history of 2.0 in that repository.  So, be it.
>It's not all that important, and we've done this at every branch point before.  

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.

>Some of the operations take too long as it is because of the large history of some files.

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

>Regardless, whatever we do must be planned and agreed to ahead of time.  -- 

+++1; that was the point of my note and the basis to Roy's objections :-)

View raw message