i'm responding to the head of this thread because i haven't read
the rest of it yet.. so, as usual, my comments may be stale.
Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> . let 2.0 HEAD proceed as it seems to be going now
:
> . let those who are interested (not more than a few would be needed to
> make it viable) maintain a separate tree based on 2.0.43, including
> apr and apr-util... call it httpd-2.0.43, with potential releases
> 2.0.43.1, 2.0.43.2, etc.
>
> priorities would be
>
> . quick integration of critical fixes from HEAD
>
> . skepticism regarding any changes other than critical fixes; for
> some fixes it would be best to wait to see if any users of the
> stable tree actually encounter the problem
>
> . maintaining the MMN
this works for me, except for some of the details -- like the
version nomenclature.
let's get away from the term 'branch', and use something less
technically overloaded. i propose 'stream'.
i'd like to combine this with the leap-frogging stable/development
stream idea. for stake-in-the-ground and pr reasons, i'd suggest
taking whatever we want to start this stable stream with and
giving it a new number, such as 2.1. (i suspect i'm anticipating
firstbill's probably-already-posted comment on this..) then rename
head to 2.2 and that's where development continues. 2.0 as such
dries up and blows away. when we repeat with a new stable stream,
the 2.2 head gets snapshot as 2.3, head becomes 2.4, and 2.2 vanishes.
whew, that's a load off the top of my head.. :-)
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
