Okay, now that OtherBill weighed in, I guess I'd like to start on the 2.1 branch. Now, how to achieve this?
I think housing a branch under the httpd-2.0 CVS repository isn't ideal for several reasons: - As OtherBill pointed out, HEAD must remain 2.0. - Our past strategy seems to have been that we create separate repositories for each minor bump. - If we ignore this and still branch for 2.1, that means we have 2.1 under the httpd-2.0 repository. Can I say "ick" loud enough? - Therefore, I think we should create a httpd-2.1 repository. And, I'd like to seriously consider using Subversion rather than CVS. To me, it makes a lot of sense to switch to Subversion now rather than later. If we do start on a model where we 'branch early and often,' Subversion can handle the branching in a much better way than CVS can (and more scalable to boot). Since one of the primary matters in this 2.1 proposal is a re-org of certain directories, we can handle moving files without losing revision history. Something that is painful to do in CVS. I've used Subversion enough and I believe it is certainly up to handling our needs. If you haven't seen it yet, check out: http://subversion.tigris.org/ Of course, I volunteer to maintain the server on icarus (I already have the relevant permissions to do so). I'm not saying that we have to use Subversion, but I think it is definitely worth considering if we go to a new repos. -- justin
