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 2002/11/23 23:14:03 UTC
karma and cvs commit messages
Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
fix that so I can commit to the new "httpd" repository directly?
Also, we need to get commit messages to show which branch
the commit went against.
-aaron
Re: karma and cvs commit messages
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 05:32 PM 11/23/2002, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
>>a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
>>the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
>>fix that so I can commit to the new "httpd" repository directly?
>
>Why the heck was that done? Too many things get screwed over
>when you change a module name in cvs.
>
>-1 -- I am reverting that change to cvs. Don't screw with this stuff
>without a clear plan in STATUS, and notify apmail and cvsadmin before
>screwing with the filesystem. It would have been far more sensible
>not to branch 2.0 and instead create a new module that doesn't suffer
>from legacy versions.
Speaking of plans and the comments above, it seems to make sense
to keep the httpd-2.0 CVS module name, until we are ready to release
2.0. All of the development effort is twords some future 2.2 or the
current 2.0, and those that like to live on the bleeding edge check out
cvs HEAD anyways. But we've been operating this was for months,
with files that the respective RM's have chosen not to put into the
current version, for whatever conservative and reasoned reasons.
When 2.2 is 'cooked', I agree with Roy's observation, we toast the
httpd repository (with complete history) in either CVS or SVN, based
on the best-of-breed at that moment.
Bill
Re: karma and cvs commit messages
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 02:35 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wrote:
>> Also, we need to get commit messages to show which branch
>> the commit went against.
>
> It does... by default (no branch) the commit is against cvs HEAD
> (the development branch.) The commit message alerts you when
> the commit is against the APACHE_2_0_BRANCH.
Ah yes you are correct; I see the branch in the message now.
-aaron
Re: karma and cvs commit messages
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>.
At 04:14 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
>a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
>the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
>fix that so I can commit to the new "httpd" repository directly?
Sounds like we simply add the httpd module to the httpd-2.0 list.
Infrastructure, who can handle this?
>Also, we need to get commit messages to show which branch
>the commit went against.
It does... by default (no branch) the commit is against cvs HEAD
(the development branch.) The commit message alerts you when
the commit is against the APACHE_2_0_BRANCH.
Bill
Re: karma and cvs commit messages
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
Agreed.
Didn't know we were in the business of screwing ourselves like this...
david
> > Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
> > a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
> > the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
> > fix that so I can commit to the new "httpd" repository directly?
>
> Why the heck was that done? Too many things get screwed over
> when you change a module name in cvs.
>
> -1 -- I am reverting that change to cvs. Don't screw with this stuff
> without a clear plan in STATUS, and notify apmail and cvsadmin before
> screwing with the filesystem. It would have been far more sensible
> not to branch 2.0 and instead create a new module that doesn't suffer
> from legacy versions.
>
> ....Roy
Re: karma and cvs commit messages
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
Agreed 100%
This whole episode stinks...
david
> --On Saturday, November 23, 2002 3:32 PM -0800 "Roy T. Fielding"
> <fi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >> Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
> >> a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
> >> the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
> >> fix that so I can commit to the new "httpd" repository directly?
> >
> > Why the heck was that done? Too many things get screwed over
> > when you change a module name in cvs.
>
> Yeah, exactly. We had zero discussion on this change. And, it's a
> bad change, IMHO. People shouldn't be making such drastic changes
> without some sort of discussion!
>
> IMHO, httpd-2.0 must always be the definitive repository for Apache
> HTTP Server 2.0. If we physically split the 2.1/(2.2/3.0)
> repositories, we can then change the name (please discuss this
> first). Note that 2.0 shouldn't be housed there, since it once
> authoritatively lived in httpd-2.0. ISTR the big snafu when Ken
> 'renamed' the httpd-docs repository. That should have warned us that
> such moves are a horrible idea.
>
> I know Subversion has lots of drawbacks (I know of at least 2
> committers who will veto it outright), but remember that branches in
> CVS kill performance (really due to the now anachronistic RCS format
> and how it stores branches). It's going to be a PITA
> performance-wise if we have a long-lived CVS repository. So, I think
> there is a strong benefit to creating httpd-2.1 and then httpd-2.2
> and so on. I'm afraid by the time that we hit httpd 2.9 (say), we're
> going to be in a world of hurt on the 'stable' branches due to CVS's
> inability to scale with active branches. -- justin
>
Re: karma and cvs commit messages
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
--On Saturday, November 23, 2002 3:32 PM -0800 "Roy T. Fielding"
<fi...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
>> a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
>> the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
>> fix that so I can commit to the new "httpd" repository directly?
>
> Why the heck was that done? Too many things get screwed over
> when you change a module name in cvs.
Yeah, exactly. We had zero discussion on this change. And, it's a
bad change, IMHO. People shouldn't be making such drastic changes
without some sort of discussion!
IMHO, httpd-2.0 must always be the definitive repository for Apache
HTTP Server 2.0. If we physically split the 2.1/(2.2/3.0)
repositories, we can then change the name (please discuss this
first). Note that 2.0 shouldn't be housed there, since it once
authoritatively lived in httpd-2.0. ISTR the big snafu when Ken
'renamed' the httpd-docs repository. That should have warned us that
such moves are a horrible idea.
I know Subversion has lots of drawbacks (I know of at least 2
committers who will veto it outright), but remember that branches in
CVS kill performance (really due to the now anachronistic RCS format
and how it stores branches). It's going to be a PITA
performance-wise if we have a long-lived CVS repository. So, I think
there is a strong benefit to creating httpd-2.1 and then httpd-2.2
and so on. I'm afraid by the time that we hit httpd 2.9 (say), we're
going to be in a world of hurt on the 'stable' branches due to CVS's
inability to scale with active branches. -- justin
Re: karma and cvs commit messages
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org>.
> Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is
> a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match
> the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we
> fix that so I can commit to the new "httpd" repository directly?
Why the heck was that done? Too many things get screwed over
when you change a module name in cvs.
-1 -- I am reverting that change to cvs. Don't screw with this stuff
without a clear plan in STATUS, and notify apmail and cvsadmin before
screwing with the filesystem. It would have been far more sensible
not to branch 2.0 and instead create a new module that doesn't suffer
from legacy versions.
....Roy