You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2010/10/06 21:26:31 UTC
[Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk
On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
> the trunk for that tree now.
Counting up the opinions posted on the list...
[ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
[ ] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance
wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier
If we have you miscategorized, please revote. Otherwise let's just leave
this vote/discussion open till the end of the week for others to chime in?
Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 07 Oct 2010, at 1:13 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:26 -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> [ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
>> jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
>>
>> [ ] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance
>> wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier
>
> Here is a stupid idea: why don't we have both? We can renamed 1.5.x to
> trunk and have a readme (or APR-util_has_been_merged_to_APR_trunk)
> file
> in there that says that this should not be paired with APR trunk any
> more.
Makes sense.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:26 -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> [ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
> jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
>
> [ ] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance
> wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier
Here is a stupid idea: why don't we have both? We can renamed 1.5.x to
trunk and have a readme (or APR-util_has_been_merged_to_APR_trunk) file
in there that says that this should not be paired with APR trunk any
more.
--
Bojan
Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm> wrote:
> On 07 Oct 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>> These choices seem skewed to me. "apr is apr-util/trunk" is a
>> different concept than "rename 1.5.x to trunk." Conceptually, "apr is
>> apr-util trunk" whatever we decide.
>
> I disagree, in the past, we had two projects, each with an independent trunk
> and release cycle, one called apr, the other called apr-util. We have chosen
> to retire the apr-util project, and have copied the functionality into apr,
> but that doesn't make the apr-util project go away.
Maybe we're disagreeing to agree ;) All I (we) mean by "apr is
apr-util" trunk from a conceptual standpoint is that we expect new
features to the "util" part of the code will go to apr trunk first,
then potentially be backported to the apr-1.x-compatible "util"
codebase (which happens to be in a separate tree).
> We will still need to make releases on apr-util in the v1.x series, and we
> may need to bump v1.3 to v1.4, etc. For this, we need a properly functional
> trunk, otherwise those following the standard svn conventions face problems.
yep
Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wm...@gmail.com>.
On 10/7/2010 5:29 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> We will still need to make releases on apr-util in the v1.x series, and we may need to
> bump v1.3 to v1.4, etc. For this, we need a properly functional trunk, otherwise those
> following the standard svn conventions face problems.
Yes, and no. 1.x APR is similarly retired. It doesn't live on a trunk/ either.
1.x APR-util cannot build against APR trunk/, so I fail to see how this logic
holds. If APR 1.4 becomes APR 1.5 becomes APR 1.6, this fork occurs from the
APR 1.x-1 branch, not from APR 2.
Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk
Posted by Henry Jen <he...@ztune.net>.
2010/10/7 Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>:
> On 07 Oct 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>> These choices seem skewed to me. "apr is apr-util/trunk" is a
>> different concept than "rename 1.5.x to trunk." Conceptually, "apr is
>> apr-util trunk" whatever we decide.
>
> I disagree, in the past, we had two projects, each with an independent trunk
> and release cycle, one called apr, the other called apr-util. We have chosen
> to retire the apr-util project, and have copied the functionality into apr,
> but that doesn't make the apr-util project go away.
>
> We will still need to make releases on apr-util in the v1.x series, and we
> may need to bump v1.3 to v1.4, etc. For this, we need a properly functional
> trunk, otherwise those following the standard svn conventions face problems.
>
To me, I only care two things,
1. trunk should be where the latest development is going on.
2. avoid to have two different development tree(fork)
Seems to me, apr-util is merged into apr project and should have the
same release cycle. apr-util should only be maintained for sustaining
old releases but not new ones.
My understanding could be wrong, this is why we need clarification for
people like me.
Cheers,
Henry
Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 07 Oct 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> These choices seem skewed to me. "apr is apr-util/trunk" is a
> different concept than "rename 1.5.x to trunk." Conceptually, "apr is
> apr-util trunk" whatever we decide.
I disagree, in the past, we had two projects, each with an independent
trunk and release cycle, one called apr, the other called apr-util. We
have chosen to retire the apr-util project, and have copied the
functionality into apr, but that doesn't make the apr-util project go
away.
We will still need to make releases on apr-util in the v1.x series,
and we may need to bump v1.3 to v1.4, etc. For this, we need a
properly functional trunk, otherwise those following the standard svn
conventions face problems.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
>> Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
>> the trunk for that tree now.
>
> Counting up the opinions posted on the list...
>
> [ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
> jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
>
> [ ] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance
> wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier
These choices seem skewed to me. "apr is apr-util/trunk" is a
different concept than "rename 1.5.x to trunk." Conceptually, "apr is
apr-util trunk" whatever we decide.
The question is whether the latest apr-1.x-compatible apr-util is
apr-util trunk or apr-util 1.5.x (today; could be apr-util 1.6.x next
month).
It's no huge deal to me, but I vote for "the latest apr-1.x-compatible
apr-util is apr-util trunk."
Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk
Posted by Sander Temme <sa...@temme.net>.
On Oct 6, 2010, at 12:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> [ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
> jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
>
> [+1] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance
> wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier, sctemme
S.
--
sander@temme.net http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: FC5A 6FC6 2E25 2DFD 8007 EE23 9BB8 63B0 F51B B88A
View my availability: http://tungle.me/sctemme
Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Am 06.10.2010 21:26, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
> On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
>> Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
>> the trunk for that tree now.
>
> Counting up the opinions posted on the list...
>
> [ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
> jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
>
> [x] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance
> wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier