On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 09:17:46AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: > On 7/6/05, Brian Havard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:15:51 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > > > >I'm not asking about Brian's patch, but how we are maintaining > > >1.0.x/1.1.x branches... > > > > > >Can we declare these 'dead'? For all intents and purposes, anyone > > >building 1.2.x has an ABI compatible flavor that can be substituted > > >for a 1.0.x or 1.1.x version, right? > > > > Good question. I'm not really clear on what the state of the different > > branches is. I'm just committing all the way back to 0.9.x to make sure the > > next httpd-2.0.x gets these bug fixes. > > I'm fuzzy when it comes to practical matters, such as who (if anybody) > is the benificiary of those other branches. Aren't those theoretical > beneficiaries better off in the long run if we concentrate our efforts > on a fewer number of branches? (But we have to have a versioning > policy that allows the fewer number of branches without slowing down > the implementation of new features unnecessarily.)
Maintaining simple fixes on a "stable" 1.1.x branch is useful since it means 1.1.x patch releases can be released on a whim regardless of the state of the trunk. I share the general apathy about the the 1.0.x branch. joe
