Joe Orton wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:49:12PM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
> >
> > Sander Striker wrote:
> >
> > >The latter should never happen. Develop on trunk, merge back to
> > >stable: 2.2 branch, or 2.2 branch and 2.0 branch.
> > >
> > >At least, that's what I envisioned after al
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:49:12PM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> Sander Striker wrote:
>
> >The latter should never happen. Develop on trunk, merge back to
> >stable: 2.2 branch, or 2.2 branch and 2.0 branch.
> >
> >At least, that's what I envisioned after all the discussion on how
> >to move o
Brad Nicholes wrote:
I think we all agree that all of the backporting and sync'ing sucks
but I don't see any other way of doing this. At some point 2.2 has to
branch, stabilize and finally release. In a perfect world releasing 2.2
would happen immediately after branching it so that no backpo
Agreed... Is there anything in trunk currently which wouldn't be viable
in 2.2? I don't think so. In any case, I was certainly unclear
that for now on, all stuff expected to be in 2.2 needed to be
backported by the committer to the 2.2 branch. I must have
missed the "We are branching off 2.2 from t
I think we all agree that all of the backporting and sync'ing sucks
but I don't see any other way of doing this. At some point 2.2 has to
branch, stabilize and finally release. In a perfect world releasing 2.2
would happen immediately after branching it so that no backporting or
sync'ing would
Sander Striker wrote:
The latter should never happen. Develop on trunk, merge back to
stable: 2.2 branch, or 2.2 branch and 2.0 branch.
At least, that's what I envisioned after all the discussion on how
to move on with the branch/versioning scheme.
The problem is that doing a typo fix in th
Jim Jagielski wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Could someone explain to me what the current thinking is about
the httpd SVN trunk? Is it 2.3.0? 2.1.x? Where does 2.2 fit
in all this? So patches made to HEAD/trunk need to be
backported to 2.2, and 2.1 and then 2.0 ???
D
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Could someone explain to me what the current thinking is about
> > the httpd SVN trunk? Is it 2.3.0? 2.1.x? Where does 2.2 fit
> > in all this? So patches made to HEAD/trunk need to be
> > backported to 2.2, and 2.1 and then 2.0 ???
> >
> >
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Could someone explain to me what the current thinking is about
the httpd SVN trunk? Is it 2.3.0? 2.1.x? Where does 2.2 fit
in all this? So patches made to HEAD/trunk need to be
backported to 2.2, and 2.1 and then 2.0 ???
Does anyone else think this is more complex than it
ne
Paul Querna wrote:
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Could someone explain to me what the current thinking is about
> > the httpd SVN trunk? Is it 2.3.0? 2.1.x? Where does 2.2 fit
> > in all this? So patches made to HEAD/trunk need to be
> > backported to 2.2, and 2.1 and then 2.0 ???
> >
>
> Trunk i
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Could someone explain to me what the current thinking is about
the httpd SVN trunk? Is it 2.3.0? 2.1.x? Where does 2.2 fit
in all this? So patches made to HEAD/trunk need to be
backported to 2.2, and 2.1 and then 2.0 ???
Trunk is always open development. Nothing should st
Could someone explain to me what the current thinking is about
the httpd SVN trunk? Is it 2.3.0? 2.1.x? Where does 2.2 fit
in all this? So patches made to HEAD/trunk need to be
backported to 2.2, and 2.1 and then 2.0 ???
Does anyone else think this is more complex than it
needs to be? :)
12 matches
Mail list logo
