httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wilfredo Sánchez <>
Subject Re: 2.1 Fallout; httpd v.s. httpd-2.0
Date Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:24:15 GMT
   CVS is our tool for managing our development sources, not a way to 
fetch releases.  Users of CVS have to know that.  If you don't want 
surprises, stick to the release downloads, or read the dev lists.

   We can't be cornered into losing development history because we can't 
reorg our repository on the theory that it will confuse users.  That's 
like saying we can't change API once it's committed.

   If you don't think it's the right thing for all versions to live in 
one repository, that's one thing, but the fact that someone called the 
module httpd-2.0 doesn't mean we have to have a CVS repository with 
that name indefinitely.  If we had switched to svn in the middle of 
2.0, the HEAD of 2.0 wouldn't even be in CVS.  Does that mean we can't 
switch to svn without closing out the current release?  I'd say not.


On Monday, November 25, 2002, at 01:55  PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> 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.

View raw message