On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:27:18AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > 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.
I was referring to OtherBill's earlier comment today when he said: >(leaving 2.0 as head, so nobody following older checkout instructions to >grab the now-current version have a 'surprize' in store.) I tend to find myself agreeing with him on this. And, because I think it is very counter-intuitive if I check out httpd-2.0 and get "2.1" - something isn't right there. > 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. Look at all of the repositories we created that are still left around: apache-1.2 apache-1.3 apache-apr apache-nspr httpd-2.0 The apache-apr and apache-nspr repositories were fairly short-lived. I wasn't around when they were created, so perhaps the intention really was that they would be the 'next big thing.' > > - 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? Nope - any developers have to deal with this to. I think it's general badness. If it were called httpd-2, I'd be okay, but not httpd-2.0. > > - 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. Which is partly why I think we should move to Subversion - repeated merges or not. > 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. Subversion has been self-hosting for a year now with zero data loss. I'm not concerned. > Yup, I agree, but that's something we're going to have to live with > just a little longer, methinks. I'm merely stating that we don't have to. Especially considering the first order of business in a (proposed) 2.1 would be moving files around. -- justin
