httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacob Champion <champio...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG
Date Thu, 05 Jan 2017 18:50:18 GMT
On 01/04/2017 11:55 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 04 Jan 2017, at 8:37 PM, Jacob Champion <champion.p@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, there's 3k of the 20k. And remember, my point was that we can
>> fix what I call "dead code" with good old fashioned legwork. I
>> don't advocate trashing trunk, and I don't think having "dead code"
>> is a disaster or a stain on anyone here. I just don't think it's
>> appropriate to spin up an RC from trunk as-is.
>
> Look for the discussion that occurred around November 2011 when v2.4
> was released:
>
> http://smtp.grokbase.com/t/apache/dev/11bb6wswq2/branched-httpd-2-4-x
>
>  We came to the same conclusion then.

I started a longer reply to what you wrote earlier in the email, but I 
think I need to clear up any misunderstandings I have with this part first.

 From offlist discussions I've had with other committers (and Bill's 
recent reply to this thread), my understanding was that an alpha/beta 
branch would be forked from the current tip of trunk, followed by 
testing and additional feature work, until a .0 release is voted on.

The conversation you linked to appears to modify that somewhat: we 
started tagging trunk directly with alpha/beta, and at some point 
decided to fork a 2.4.x from a mostly current trunk. It also adds the 
information that 2.4.x was still CTR, up to the .0 release. But in both 
cases, the statement "we plan to fork 2.6.x from a current-ish trunk 
commit" seems to hold up pretty well.

Is that correct?

--Jacob

Mime
View raw message