Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

2017-10-26 Thread Yann Ylavic
I like this "attic" idea better, resurrecting something is easier if you can find that it ever existed (w/o diving into svn history, à la "svn delete"). On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > Thanks Greg. The proposed change is purely aestetic.

AW: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

2017-10-26 Thread Plüm , Rüdiger , Vodafone Group
+1 Regards Rüdiger > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic@gmail.com] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Oktober 2017 10:31 > An: httpd-dev > Betreff: Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?) > > I like this "attic" idea better,

Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

2017-10-26 Thread Stefan Eissing
Thanks Greg. The proposed change is purely aestetic. You could make a dir /branches/attic" and move all candidates there. People wanting to "resurrect" them can simply move them back. This is not RCS. > Am 25.10.2017 um 20:21 schrieb Greg Stein : > > To be clear: "delete"

Re: apr "the latest available version"

2017-10-26 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 25.10.2017 um 18:26 schrieb Daniel Gruno: On 10/25/2017 06:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: it is *not* helpful when you already have deployed httpd 2.4.29 that you by random luck face a apr-1.6.3 build on the fedora buildserver I'd suggest you post this to d...@apr.apache.org if you want

Re: apr "the latest available version"

2017-10-26 Thread Graham Leggett
On 26 Oct 2017, at 12:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > i am not going to subscribe to every single devel list out there for single > issues and had already submitted a bug as 1.6.x was over months invisible > when you expect that the top part of the page is recent Please

Re: apr "the latest available version"

2017-10-26 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 26.10.2017 um 12:38 schrieb Graham Leggett: On 26 Oct 2017, at 12:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: i am not going to subscribe to every single devel list out there for single issues and had already submitted a bug as 1.6.x was over months invisible when you expect

Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

2017-10-26 Thread Rainer Jung
Am 26.10.2017 um 10:30 schrieb Yann Ylavic: I like this "attic" idea better, resurrecting something is easier if you can find that it ever existed (w/o diving into svn history, à la "svn delete"). +1

Re: apr "the latest available version"

2017-10-26 Thread Daniel Gruno
On 10/26/2017 12:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 26.10.2017 um 12:38 schrieb Graham Leggett: >> On 26 Oct 2017, at 12:31 PM, Reindl Harald >> wrote: >> >>> i am not going to subscribe to every single devel list out there for >>> single issues and had already

Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

2017-10-26 Thread Eric Covener
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > I like this "attic" idea better, resurrecting something is easier if > you can find that it ever existed (w/o diving into svn history, à la > "svn delete"). +1

Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

2017-10-26 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > You could make a dir /branches/attic" and move all candidates there. People > wanting to "resurrect" them can simply move them back. This is not RCS. +1