On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:47:28AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > - As OtherBill pointed out, HEAD must remain 2.0.
Maybe HEAD should be the development trunk, while we branch off minor (and patch) revisions for stabalization. Like this: HEAD | HTTPD_2_0 | / | /-----HTTPD_2_0_43 | / | /-----HTTPD_2_0_42 | / | /-----HTTPD_2_0_41 | / |/ | | > - Our past strategy seems to have been that we create separate > repositories for each minor bump. Well, not exactly. It seems to be more based on the number of years we'll be working on that repository. I'd rather see us only create new repos for major revisions, then for feature revisions (aka minor bumps, like 2.0-->2.1 for the auth stuff) then we just do a cvs branch. > - 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? That's just for us, who cares? > - Therefore, I think we should create a httpd-2.1 repository. -0.5 Simply for the reason that I see us working on 2.1 for 4 months, then continuing on to 2.2 for the next medium-big feature change. > 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). A strong (non veto) -1 until subversion is 1.0 GA. Although I'd really like to see us using Subversion, I don't think we can afford to have any problems with the httpd project's code repositories. > 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. Yup, I agree, but that's something we're going to have to live with just a little longer, methinks. -aaron
