> Am 04.03.2022 um 09:46 schrieb Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>:
>
>
>
> On 3/4/22 9:24 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Am 04.03.2022 um 08:32 schrieb Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/3/22 5:40 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 05:11:52PM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/22 4:49 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
>>>>>> Folks (in no way pointing a finger at Jim who just did merging duty), it
>>>>>> is not hard to test your backport proposals, either in an SVN branch or
>>>>>> a github PR if you want better testing coverage before you submit for
>>>>>> review.
>>>>>
>>>>> A quick question on this. If I branch 2.4.x
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Travis will run at all (because their is a .travis.yml in that branch)?
>>>>
>>>> Yup, Travis will definitely run for all branches, e.g. it works for the
>>>> candidate-2.4.x branches:
>>>>
>>>> https://app.travis-ci.com/github/apache/httpd/branches
>>>>
>>>>> 2. But the conditions in .travis.yml will likely not cause travis to run
>>>>> the same tests as for 2.4.x, but likely the trunk ones,
>>>>> correct? Hence we need adjusted conditions in .travis.yml and we need to
>>>>> define some kind of naming rules for branches from
>>>>> trunk and 2.4.x to ensure that the correct tests and builds are running?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, good question. I'm not sure how the "branch" variable appears in an
>>>> arbitrary branch but it's possible we'd need to tweak the conditions
>>>> again, yes. If we used a naming rule of "branches/2.4.x-*" for 2.4.x
>>>> backports would that be reasonable? This is most common from examples
>>>
>>> Sounds reasonable, but given that for candidates we use candidate-2.4.x we
>>> should change this to 2.4.x-candidate if we set a
>>> naming convention of branches/2.4.x-*.
>>
>> I can change that easily, but the pattern be better: branches/2.4.* since
>> the candidate carries the to be released version, not 2.4.x (the name
>> branches/2.4.x-candidate-2.4.54 is silly and I refuse to go there -.-)
>
> Yeah, let's start a fierce naming discussion :-). No seriously:
> branches/2.4.* is absolutely fine for me. We just need to align
> changes to the release scripts and .travis.yml.
;-)
Will do the release script changes, when agreed upon.
>
> Regards
>
> RĂ¼diger