You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org> on 2002/11/25 23:55:39 UTC
[VOTE] CVS organization (was Re: 2.1 Fallout; httpd v.s. httpd-2.0)
Come on guys; why does something as simple as this have to turn so
controversial.
Here's a proposal that I hope will make everyone happy:
1) we symlink httpd to httpd-2.0.
2) we announce that in 30 days we will have a flag day where all
checkouts must start referencing "httpd" directly.
3) on the flag day, we remove the symlink, make an exact duplicate of
"httpd-2.0" and name it "httpd", and then remove write access to
the old httpd-2.0 repository (keeping it open for readonly).
Vote please:
[ ] +1 and I'll help with this.
[ ] +0 sounds good, sorry I can't help.
[ ] -0 sounds bad, but I can't help.
[ ] -1 sounds terrible, here's why ________ and here's my alternative
_________ .
-aaron
On Monday, November 25, 2002, at 01:55 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Monday, November 25, 2002 9:45 AM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
> <wr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> This whole 'cvs branches are evil' smacks of FUD. Certainly some
>> operations are less than optimal. But certainly things have
>> improved since folks experiences with branch-related bugs soured
>> them to the concept.
>
> They are evil in the sense that we jeopardize confusing both our users
> and developers with the branches. I don't believe we should rename
> the CVS repository (orphaning httpd-2.0). Even with your current
> proposal, it would silently morph all httpd-2.0 working copies to
> httpd (with implicit version 2.1). I don't think that's fair to our
> users who use CVS working copies. Our obligation to them should be
> that HEAD of httpd-2.0 contains, well, HEAD of httpd-2.0 not httpd > 3.9.
>
> I believe that the authoritative version of httpd-2.0 *must* remain in
> the repository called 'httpd-2.0.' I'm midly disturbed that it now
> contains 2.1 (mainly because there was no prior discussion about how
> to do the branching). 2.1 shouldn't be living in httpd-2.0 - I'd
> prefer that we'd back that out and start a new repository with 2.1
> rather than further corrupting the 2.0 repository.
>
> If you want to create an httpd module going forward, we could select
> one that doesn't have a version number in it. This would allow us to
> have multiple concurrent branches in one repository - there would be
> no contract as to what version is HEAD. Yes, we lose the ability to
> have contiguous history for this particular separation. If we plan
> wisely, that won't happen again.
>
> However, I firmly believe that prior decisions have restricted what we
> can do with httpd-2.0. httpd-2.0 must live. We can't change that,
> nor should we be placing httpd 2.1 in there implicitly. Doing
> anything else is to do harm to the very people we're trying to help by
> imposing a versioning scheme. -- justin