On Monday 05 January 2004 20:57 CET Justin Mason wrote:
> Theo Van Dinter writes:
> >> OK, let's stick with doing 2.6x from sf.net CVS instead. It's a
> >> little more tiresome, but ASF-izing 2.6x in the meantime would be
> >> harder all-in-all and require intrusive changes.
> >
> >well, a bugfix will now require a checkin to head, then a checkin to ASF
> >2.6x (we don't want the branch out of sync with CVS), then a checkin to
> >CVS 2.6x.
> >
> >not to mention taking the patches already applied to svn 2.6x and
> > applying them to cvs.
>
> ick.
>
> Mind you I did tag the 2.6x sf.net CVS so a diff should work. Perhaps
> the way to do it is:
>[...]
> - then, periodically (every month or so?):
Hm. Can't we just develop in the 2.6x branch in SVN? That's what I meant
when I said "being picky" about that stuff: The non-CLA'd stuff is in the
Apache SVN anyway because we imported the whole history. So to me it
doesn't really make a difference where we work as long as we don't touch
the non-CLA'd stuff. The only difference it should make is that we can't
switch licenses yet and don't have the ASF "protection" for that code.
Sander, what do you say?
Cheers,
Malte
--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
