On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:25:36PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > branches in CVS are awful (perhaps not so with SVN though). > > I have only heard anecdotal evidence for this, but have actually > used cvs branches on other large and very successful projects > before. (*cough* PHP! *ahem*). I'd rather see a cvs branch than > a whole new copy of the repository. We can wait until the 3.0 > cycle to switch to SVN or start a new repository if we want. > > > Not to mention our repository is "httpd-2.0" - I don't think it makes > > sense to have a 2.1 in there. > > > > I'm not entirely sold on splitting off to a 2.1 yet, but I think we > > now have something where it is worth discussing it. -- justin > > I'd really like to see us start attacking smaller-grain problems > and releasing those features more often, rather than lining up years > and years of "ooh me too and this too" until we've got bugs coming > out of our ears and nothing stable out the door for our users and > testers. IMHO, a new auth framework is a *perfect* target for the > next milestone, and it makes sense to call it 2.1. > > Any other opinions?
Just the same one I've had all along. Fix it in 2.0. If it is a major config change, then we document it. We have made changes like this before. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Jean St Oakland CA 94610 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
