You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com> on 2005/01/19 07:23:36 UTC
Branching 1.1.x
If there are no objections, I will copy APR and APR-Util trunk to
~/branches/1.1.x/ either late Thursday or Friday.
Shortly afterwards I will start with 1.1.0-RC1.
Trunk will become 1.2.0-dev.
My only remaining concern is the stability of the LDAP Code. Are the
SSL/TLS Upgrade issues resolved?
Regarding APR-DBD, I agree with Nick that it would be best to get it
into Subversion as soon as possible, but I do not see any reason to hold
up 1.1.x for it.
-Paul Querna
Re: Branching 1.1.x
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Wednesday, January 19, 2005 12:43 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> The only question you hadn't answered, do we need trunk = 1.2
> today, or can trunk remain 1.1.x until a feature patch drives
> us to split 1.1.x from 1.2? I ask because changes to head
> would likely be desirable for 1.1.1 until we really drive to
> release 1.2.0.
I'd be afraid of a change being committed into the trunk that breaks
compatibility. What Thom and I did for 1.0.1 was to do a diff between
trunk and 1.0.0 and review what changed and backport everything we could
that didn't alter the API. I think that's the safest course of action -
but it places more work on the RM. However, I'd prefer that APR trunk
checkouts don't mis-report compatibility. So, yes, I think trunk should go
to 1.2.0 once 1.1.0 is out. -- justin
Re: Branching 1.1.x
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 12:19 PM 1/19/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> svn cp .../trunk .../branches/1.1
>>Or if we decided not to use trunk, we can also
>> svn cp .../tags/1.1.0 .../branches/1.1
>
>^^ that was my plan. (branches/1.1.x/)
The only question you hadn't answered, do we need trunk = 1.2
today, or can trunk remain 1.1.x until a feature patch drives
us to split 1.1.x from 1.2? I ask because changes to head
would likely be desirable for 1.1.1 until we really drive to
release 1.2.0.
>>One final commentary, is it really necessary to keep trying
>>to sync version numbers of apr and apr-util? E.g. apr-iconv
>>hasn't changed, it shouldn't need a bump/release at all.
>
>I don't think it is a requirement for minor point releases. but it makes sense in this case since both have had major additions/changes since 1.0.x.
Agreed today, and apr-iconv shouldn't be pushed at this time,
I don't think. [I'll have to look.]
Bill
Re: Branching 1.1.x
Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> svn cp .../trunk .../branches/1.1
>
> Or if we decided not to use trunk, we can also
>
> svn cp .../tags/1.1.0 .../branches/1.1
>
^^ that was my plan. (branches/1.1.x/)
> Given all our options with SVN, is it necessary today to
> push the trunk to any given rev number?
>
> On your suggestion to let 1.1.0 fly, I will do a bit of
> comparison at the ABI level before my +1, otherwise sounds
> great. My only concern is the somewhat crufty .exp files
> hacks, which I'll review tomorrow.
Thanks.
> One final commentary, is it really necessary to keep trying
> to sync version numbers of apr and apr-util? E.g. apr-iconv
> hasn't changed, it shouldn't need a bump/release at all.
I don't think it is a requirement for minor point releases. but it makes
sense in this case since both have had major additions/changes since 1.0.x.
Re: Branching 1.1.x
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
I understand
svn cp .../trunk .../tags/1.1.0
are you planning to drop any new API interfaces from that rev?
Until we commit new API interfaces, doesn't it make as much
sense to leave svn trunk at 1.1 rev? If we decide to further
fix 1.1.x, we can commit those changes to svn trunk.
If we decide in two weeks to plow ahead to 1.2 or 2.0, at
that moment, we can
svn cp .../trunk .../branches/1.1
Or if we decided not to use trunk, we can also
svn cp .../tags/1.1.0 .../branches/1.1
Given all our options with SVN, is it necessary today to
push the trunk to any given rev number?
On your suggestion to let 1.1.0 fly, I will do a bit of
comparison at the ABI level before my +1, otherwise sounds
great. My only concern is the somewhat crufty .exp files
hacks, which I'll review tomorrow.
One final commentary, is it really necessary to keep trying
to sync version numbers of apr and apr-util? E.g. apr-iconv
hasn't changed, it shouldn't need a bump/release at all.
Bill
At 12:23 AM 1/19/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
>If there are no objections, I will copy APR and APR-Util trunk to ~/branches/1.1.x/ either late Thursday or Friday.
>
>Shortly afterwards I will start with 1.1.0-RC1.
>
>Trunk will become 1.2.0-dev.
>
>My only remaining concern is the stability of the LDAP Code. Are the SSL/TLS Upgrade issues resolved?
>
>Regarding APR-DBD, I agree with Nick that it would be best to get it into Subversion as soon as possible, but I do not see any reason to hold up 1.1.x for it.
>
>-Paul Querna
>
Re: Branching 1.1.x
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
+1
On Jan 19, 2005, at 1:23 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
> If there are no objections, I will copy APR and APR-Util trunk to
> ~/branches/1.1.x/ either late Thursday or Friday.
>
> Shortly afterwards I will start with 1.1.0-RC1.
>
> Trunk will become 1.2.0-dev.
>
> My only remaining concern is the stability of the LDAP Code. Are the
> SSL/TLS Upgrade issues resolved?
>
> Regarding APR-DBD, I agree with Nick that it would be best to get it
> into Subversion as soon as possible, but I do not see any reason to
> hold up 1.1.x for it.
>
> -Paul Querna
>
>
--
=======================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else."
Re: Branching 1.1.x
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 10:23:36PM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
> If there are no objections, I will copy APR and APR-Util trunk to
> ~/branches/1.1.x/ either late Thursday or Friday.
>
> Shortly afterwards I will start with 1.1.0-RC1.
>
> Trunk will become 1.2.0-dev.
Sounds like a plan. =)
My only suggestion is that we dispense with RC1 and do 1.1.0 directly (it'd
need 3 +1s for release). The pressing question for 1.1.0 is the API not the
implementation: that could always be fixed in 1.1.1. However, if you want to
take the time to do separate RCs, I won't stop ya. -- justin