2.1/2.3

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

I must have missed it while away on vacation, but what is
the criteria on what gets in 2.1.x and what gets in 2.3.x.
Does this mean that for stuff to get in 2.2, it needs
to go into 2.3.x (trunk) then get proposed for backport
into 2.1/2.2?

Re: 2.1/2.3

[Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>]

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

>At 10:17 AM 8/10/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
>  
>
>>Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I must have missed it while away on vacation, but what is
>>>the criteria on what gets in 2.1.x and what gets in 2.3.x.
>>>Does this mean that for stuff to get in 2.2, it needs
>>>to go into 2.3.x (trunk) then get proposed for backport
>>>into 2.1/2.2?
>>>      
>>>
>>Don't mess with the 2.2 branch.  I will be re-branching it from trunk
>>once APR/APR-Util are sorted out and start their own releases.
>>    
>>
>
>I trust you mean re-sync and not re-branch?
>  
>
If by re-sync you mean what I think you mean, there's no practical 
difference between the two -- except that re-branching is easier to do. 
Unless the current 2.2 and trunk have diverged in incompatible ways, in 
which case there's something seriously wrong with the release process...

-- Brane

Re: 2.1/2.3

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

At 10:17 AM 8/10/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
>Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I must have missed it while away on vacation, but what is
>> the criteria on what gets in 2.1.x and what gets in 2.3.x.
>> Does this mean that for stuff to get in 2.2, it needs
>> to go into 2.3.x (trunk) then get proposed for backport
>> into 2.1/2.2?
>
>Don't mess with the 2.2 branch.  I will be re-branching it from trunk
>once APR/APR-Util are sorted out and start their own releases.

I trust you mean re-sync and not re-branch?

Bill

Re: 2.1/2.3

[Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>]

Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I must have missed it while away on vacation, but what is
> the criteria on what gets in 2.1.x and what gets in 2.3.x.
> Does this mean that for stuff to get in 2.2, it needs
> to go into 2.3.x (trunk) then get proposed for backport
> into 2.1/2.2?

No.

Don't mess with the 2.2 branch.  I will be re-branching it from trunk
once APR/APR-Util are sorted out and start their own releases.

-Paul