On 01/04/2017 11:55 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 04 Jan 2017, at 8:37 PM, Jacob Champion <champio...@gmail.com> wrote:
So, there's 3k of the 20k. And remember, my point was that we can
fix what I call "dead code" with good old fashioned legwork. I
don't advocate trashing trunk, and I don't think having "dead code"
is a disaster or a stain on anyone here. I just don't think it's
appropriate to spin up an RC from trunk as-is.
Look for the discussion that occurred around November 2011 when v2.4
was released:
http://smtp.grokbase.com/t/apache/dev/11bb6wswq2/branched-httpd-2-4-x
We came to the same conclusion then.
I started a longer reply to what you wrote earlier in the email, but I
think I need to clear up any misunderstandings I have with this part first.
From offlist discussions I've had with other committers (and Bill's
recent reply to this thread), my understanding was that an alpha/beta
branch would be forked from the current tip of trunk, followed by
testing and additional feature work, until a .0 release is voted on.
The conversation you linked to appears to modify that somewhat: we
started tagging trunk directly with alpha/beta, and at some point
decided to fork a 2.4.x from a mostly current trunk. It also adds the
information that 2.4.x was still CTR, up to the .0 release. But in both
cases, the statement "we plan to fork 2.6.x from a current-ish trunk
commit" seems to hold up pretty well.
Is that correct?
--Jacob
