You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to cvs@httpd.apache.org by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net> on 2002/12/02 13:47:51 UTC
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server .cvsignore Makefile.in
wsanchez@apache.org writes:
> wsanchez 2002/11/29 03:05:59
>
> Modified: . Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH CHANGES acinclude.m4
> buildconf configure.in
> build Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH binbuild.sh
> modules/aaa Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH config.m4
> modules/filters Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH config.m4
> modules/mappers Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH config9.m4
> server Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH .cvsignore Makefile.in
> Added: build Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH PrintPath config.guess
> config.sub
> Log:
> Back-port changes to allow build without an in-tree apr and apr-util.
Why does the stable tree need this?
Why can't we wait more than a few hours to merge such extensive
changes into the stable tree?
At the moment it looks like we're at an impasse on whether or not to
review before merging back to stable, but the very least people can do
when it is not a trivial change, particularly for build issues, is
wait a while to to see what blows up.
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server .cvsignore Makefile.in
Posted by Wilfredo Sánchez <ws...@wsanchez.net>.
Well, I appreciate that, and apologize if it was a bad thing.
As to why in stable... This wasn't a major change. It doesn't
change the build output, and enabled a new way to build which I and at
least some others think is important. That is, I think
that--particularly for the stable tree--we should stop building apr as
if it were part of httpd and use stable releases of apr. This is a
step in that direction.
That said, I agree it should have waited so as to let other people
give it a whirl. My bad. Bad Fred.
-wsv
On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 04:47 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Why does the stable tree need this?
>
> Why can't we wait more than a few hours to merge such extensive
> changes into the stable tree?
>
> At the moment it looks like we're at an impasse on whether or not to
> review before merging back to stable, but the very least people can do
> when it is not a trivial change, particularly for build issues, is
> wait a while to to see what blows up.
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server .cvsignore Makefile.in
Posted by Wilfredo Sánchez <ws...@wsanchez.net>.
Well, I appreciate that, and apologize if it was a bad thing.
As to why in stable... This wasn't a major change. It doesn't
change the build output, and enabled a new way to build which I and at
least some others think is important. That is, I think
that--particularly for the stable tree--we should stop building apr as
if it were part of httpd and use stable releases of apr. This is a
step in that direction.
That said, I agree it should have waited so as to let other people
give it a whirl. My bad. Bad Fred.
-wsv
On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 04:47 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Why does the stable tree need this?
>
> Why can't we wait more than a few hours to merge such extensive
> changes into the stable tree?
>
> At the moment it looks like we're at an impasse on whether or not to
> review before merging back to stable, but the very least people can do
> when it is not a trivial change, particularly for build issues, is
> wait a while to to see what blows up.
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server .cvsignore Makefile.in
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>.
At 06:47 AM 12/2/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>wsanchez@apache.org writes:
>
>> wsanchez 2002/11/29 03:05:59
>>
>> Modified: . Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH CHANGES acinclude.m4
>> buildconf configure.in
>> build Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH binbuild.sh
>> modules/aaa Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH config.m4
>> modules/filters Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH config.m4
>> modules/mappers Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH config9.m4
>> server Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH .cvsignore Makefile.in
>> Added: build Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH PrintPath config.guess
>> config.sub
>> Log:
>> Back-port changes to allow build without an in-tree apr and apr-util.
>
>Why does the stable tree need this?
Because apache-2.0 is a long-lived version, and this will help builders
for many, many months to come...
>Why can't we wait more than a few hours to merge such extensive
>changes into the stable tree?
We can and should...
>At the moment it looks like we're at an impasse on whether or not to
>review before merging back to stable, but the very least people can do
>when it is not a trivial change, particularly for build issues, is
>wait a while to to see what blows up.
Agreed. It's good to discover problems on the sandbox before we move
them into stable. A couple (or three) days is probably good to let most
folks' autobuilds chew on cvs HEAD and discover new problems.
So I like the philosophy of Fred's patches for 2.0 as well, but it would
be good to iron them out in the sandbox before they are backported.
Bill