httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server .cvsignore Makefile.in
Date Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:36:50 GMT
At 06:47 AM 12/2/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>wsanchez@apache.org writes:
>
>> wsanchez    2002/11/29 03:05:59
>> 
>>   Modified:    .        Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH CHANGES acinclude.m4
>>                         buildconf configure.in
>>                build    Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH binbuild.sh
>>                modules/aaa Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH config.m4
>>                modules/filters Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH config.m4
>>                modules/mappers Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH config9.m4
>>                server   Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH .cvsignore Makefile.in
>>   Added:       build    Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH PrintPath config.guess
>>                         config.sub
>>   Log:
>>   Back-port changes to allow build without an in-tree apr and apr-util.
>
>Why does the stable tree need this?

Because apache-2.0 is a long-lived version, and this will help builders
for many, many months to come...

>Why can't we wait more than a few hours to merge such extensive
>changes into the stable tree?

We can and should...

>At the moment it looks like we're at an impasse on whether or not to
>review before merging back to stable, but the very least people can do
>when it is not a trivial change, particularly for build issues, is
>wait a while to to see what blows up.

Agreed.  It's good to discover problems on the sandbox before we move
them into stable.  A couple (or three) days is probably good to let most
folks' autobuilds chew on cvs HEAD and discover new problems.

So I like the philosophy of Fred's patches for 2.0 as well, but it would 
be good to iron them out in the sandbox before they are backported.

Bill


Mime
View raw message