httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Joshua Slive" <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r558718 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod: mod_cgi.html.en mod_cgi.xml
Date Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:31:34 GMT
On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <> wrote:
> On 23/07/07, Joshua Slive <> wrote:
> > On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <> wrote:
> > > Any objections to this before I backport it for 2.x? It follows from
> > > this thread:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Got to it.
> Will do.
> Regarding svn commit messages.. Clearly the dev@ guys have a
> prescribed formula for theirs but docs@ doesn't (as far as I can see).
> When backporting, is it better to have e.g. "Backport r273654 to 2.2"
> or the same message as the original commit?
> It's a shame there isn't a cleaner way to apply patches to multiple
> branches simultaneously. I guess if there were, it'd be more likely
> that relevant changes would be kept in sync (for 2.0 in particular).
> The simple solution would be to checkout at a higher level that
> included trunk and the relevant branches but I'm not aware of a way to
> do that which wouldn't also give all the tags and specialised
> branches. Any clues?

Optimally you should include both the "Backport r..." and the original
log message, but I don't think anyone will object to having just one
or the other. Check out the script at
which I believe sets that up by default. (I didn't write that script;
Someone on dev@httpd did but I can't recall who.)

Merge tracking overall is a weak point of subversion at the moment,
but is being actively worked on for future versions.

I'm not really sure why you say that checking out at a higher level
would help anything. The way subversion works, each directory is
potentially independent. So it should matter whether you have
~/httpd/branches/2.2.x/ or just ~/httpd-2.2.x/.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message