You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2003/09/18 19:37:30 UTC
Re: retire cvs modules (moved from PMC)
[Moved this thread from infrastructure/pmc]
Hello dev@'ers and docs@'ers...
the infrastructure team has been trying to mop up some very old repositories,
and the only question is which should remain within our generally accessible
CVS space, which should be collected into a new graveyard/{project} repository,
and finally, which should be tarred up over to http://archive.apache.org/dist/.
You can see that Brian had parked the entire cvs repository into a tarball over in http://archive.apache.org/dist/java/java.apache.org-cvs-archive.tar.gz
for those who want to play with jserv et. al.
Here are the candidates that are strongly +1 for simply archiving
away in a tarball over at archive.apache.org:
apache-2.0, apache-apr and apache-nspr
since these were never converted into a release - all of the relevant
history of httpd is contained within the apache-1.3, httpd-2.0 and
apr[-*] trees. You can follow the evolution with the release trees.
The following trees might be tarred up if nobody has any significant
interest in 'keeping them handy' for reference:
apache-site, apache-devsite,
Docco folks, any reason we want these hand?
The following trees are of historic interest, and have folks eyeballing them for
the 'reasons', e.g. commit messages, that code had changed or for security
issues that might still exist today on older servers:
apache-1.2, httpd-proxy
My feeling is that *if* they move at all, they need to be publicly accessible from
a graveyard repository. Are their objections to moving them? If we moved the rcs
files from httpd-proxy directly to httpd-2.0/modules/proxy - there doesn't seem to
be any need to hang onto it then (I can't remember how that merge was done.)
Additional thoughts or comments?
Finally, someone else brought up httpd-pop. I'm guessing we want this commonly
available (although updated) and possibly brought into sync (and used to help with
the design and flexiblity) with httpd-2.1. It provides an example (perhaps not the
very greatest, but more sophisticated than mod_echo) for aspiring protocol authors.
So I'm personally against moving that bit, but other thoughs and observations?
http://cvs.apache.org/ shows that we have a *lot* of repositories that are hard for
newcomers to sort through (and consume quite a bit of space) - if we httpd'ers can
help mop up - I'm sure our efforts are appreciated.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: retire cvs modules (moved from PMC)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 10:30 AM 10/19/2003, Joshua Slive wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> http://cvs.apache.org/ shows that we have a *lot* of repositories that are hard for
>> newcomers to sort through (and consume quite a bit of space) - if we httpd'ers can
>> help mop up - I'm sure our efforts are appreciated.
>
>For that reason, and just to make clear to people what are the current, in
>development, repositories, I'm +1 on moving all those (except httpd-pop)
>under a graveyard, but retaining public accessibility. That is really
>just a communication issue. I don't believe this would cause significant
>pain to anybody, since I can't imagine anybody is using those repositories
>on a regular basis.
>
>As far as tarring them up and sticking them on archive.apache.org, I don't
>believe there is any need. The one advantage is that all the crazy people
>who slurp up every repository on cvs.apache.org (by rsync or cvs) wouldn't
>get at them. But retaining our history in a more "active" form is, I
>believe, worth that price.
The question about apache-apr, apache-nspr and apache-2.0 is - are they
a significant part of our history? These three I'd say no, they aren't - and
should be tarred up for those interested in where Apache 2.0 might have
gone instead. The same with httpd-proxy, since we moved that cvs history
back into the httpd-2.0 tree (and having both - even in the graveyard cvs,
is redundant.)
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: retire cvs modules (moved from PMC)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 10:30 AM 10/19/2003, Joshua Slive wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> http://cvs.apache.org/ shows that we have a *lot* of repositories that are hard for
>> newcomers to sort through (and consume quite a bit of space) - if we httpd'ers can
>> help mop up - I'm sure our efforts are appreciated.
>
>For that reason, and just to make clear to people what are the current, in
>development, repositories, I'm +1 on moving all those (except httpd-pop)
>under a graveyard, but retaining public accessibility. That is really
>just a communication issue. I don't believe this would cause significant
>pain to anybody, since I can't imagine anybody is using those repositories
>on a regular basis.
>
>As far as tarring them up and sticking them on archive.apache.org, I don't
>believe there is any need. The one advantage is that all the crazy people
>who slurp up every repository on cvs.apache.org (by rsync or cvs) wouldn't
>get at them. But retaining our history in a more "active" form is, I
>believe, worth that price.
The question about apache-apr, apache-nspr and apache-2.0 is - are they
a significant part of our history? These three I'd say no, they aren't - and
should be tarred up for those interested in where Apache 2.0 might have
gone instead. The same with httpd-proxy, since we moved that cvs history
back into the httpd-2.0 tree (and having both - even in the graveyard cvs,
is redundant.)
Bill
Re: retire cvs modules (moved from PMC)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> http://cvs.apache.org/ shows that we have a *lot* of repositories that are hard for
> newcomers to sort through (and consume quite a bit of space) - if we httpd'ers can
> help mop up - I'm sure our efforts are appreciated.
For that reason, and just to make clear to people what are the current, in
development, repositories, I'm +1 on moving all those (except httpd-pop)
under a graveyard, but retaining public accessibility. That is really
just a communication issue. I don't believe this would cause significant
pain to anybody, since I can't imagine anybody is using those repositories
on a regular basis.
As far as tarring them up and sticking them on archive.apache.org, I don't
believe there is any need. The one advantage is that all the crazy people
who slurp up every repository on cvs.apache.org (by rsync or cvs) wouldn't
get at them. But retaining our history in a more "active" form is, I
believe, worth that price.
(Ideally, I suppose, the CVS graveyard itself would fall under
archive.apache.org. But I think we want to retain all cvs access under
the cvs.apache.org name for simplicity. We can just provide a reference
on the archive.apache.org homepage pointing people to the graveyard.)
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: retire cvs modules (moved from PMC)
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> apache-1.2, httpd-proxy
>
> My feeling is that *if* they move at all, they need to be publicly accessible from
> a graveyard repository. Are their objections to moving them? If we moved the rcs
> files from httpd-proxy directly to httpd-2.0/modules/proxy - there doesn't seem to
> be any need to hang onto it then (I can't remember how that merge was done.)
As I remember it the proxy rcs files were moved across, and then moved
back - so in theory there is no history in there that isn't already in
v2.0, but I'd check to be sure.
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: retire cvs modules (moved from PMC)
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> apache-1.2, httpd-proxy
>
> My feeling is that *if* they move at all, they need to be publicly accessible from
> a graveyard repository. Are their objections to moving them? If we moved the rcs
> files from httpd-proxy directly to httpd-2.0/modules/proxy - there doesn't seem to
> be any need to hang onto it then (I can't remember how that merge was done.)
As I remember it the proxy rcs files were moved across, and then moved
back - so in theory there is no history in there that isn't already in
v2.0, but I'd check to be sure.
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
Re: retire cvs modules (moved from PMC)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> http://cvs.apache.org/ shows that we have a *lot* of repositories that are hard for
> newcomers to sort through (and consume quite a bit of space) - if we httpd'ers can
> help mop up - I'm sure our efforts are appreciated.
For that reason, and just to make clear to people what are the current, in
development, repositories, I'm +1 on moving all those (except httpd-pop)
under a graveyard, but retaining public accessibility. That is really
just a communication issue. I don't believe this would cause significant
pain to anybody, since I can't imagine anybody is using those repositories
on a regular basis.
As far as tarring them up and sticking them on archive.apache.org, I don't
believe there is any need. The one advantage is that all the crazy people
who slurp up every repository on cvs.apache.org (by rsync or cvs) wouldn't
get at them. But retaining our history in a more "active" form is, I
believe, worth that price.
(Ideally, I suppose, the CVS graveyard itself would fall under
archive.apache.org. But I think we want to retain all cvs access under
the cvs.apache.org name for simplicity. We can just provide a reference
on the archive.apache.org homepage pointing people to the graveyard.)
Joshua.