Agreed 100% This whole episode stinks...
david > --On Saturday, November 23, 2002 3:32 PM -0800 "Roy T. Fielding" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is > >> a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match > >> the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we > >> fix that so I can commit to the new "httpd" repository directly? > > > > Why the heck was that done? Too many things get screwed over > > when you change a module name in cvs. > > Yeah, exactly. We had zero discussion on this change. And, it's a > bad change, IMHO. People shouldn't be making such drastic changes > without some sort of discussion! > > IMHO, httpd-2.0 must always be the definitive repository for Apache > HTTP Server 2.0. If we physically split the 2.1/(2.2/3.0) > repositories, we can then change the name (please discuss this > first). Note that 2.0 shouldn't be housed there, since it once > authoritatively lived in httpd-2.0. ISTR the big snafu when Ken > 'renamed' the httpd-docs repository. That should have warned us that > such moves are a horrible idea. > > I know Subversion has lots of drawbacks (I know of at least 2 > committers who will veto it outright), but remember that branches in > CVS kill performance (really due to the now anachronistic RCS format > and how it stores branches). It's going to be a PITA > performance-wise if we have a long-lived CVS repository. So, I think > there is a strong benefit to creating httpd-2.1 and then httpd-2.2 > and so on. I'm afraid by the time that we hit httpd 2.9 (say), we're > going to be in a world of hurt on the 'stable' branches due to CVS's > inability to scale with active branches. -- justin >
