Re: [STATUS] Wed Jun 4 16:04:54 EDT 1997

[Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>]

> The Plan
> ========
> 
>   * We are go for a 1.2 release on June 5, 1997. The two
>     "Problems and Patches" described below will not hold this up.
>     
>   * We need to setup a time for the 1.2 release process... I would
>     suggest 14:00 EDT, at that point the CVS tree is adjusted to
>     reflect '1.2' and the tree is branched. Tarballs and distributions
>     will then be done and announced. Binary builds will proceed after
>     that.
> 
>   * We should all start signing up for binary builds for the
>     1.2 release:
>      Jim: A/UX 3.1.1, FreeBSD 2.2-STABLE
>      Ken: Digital UNIX V3.2E-1 (should work for any V3.2 system)
>      MarcS: FreeBSD-2.1-STABLE, SunOS 5.5 & 4.1.4, HPUX 10.10,
>       AIX 4.1.4, IRIX 6.2
>      Mark Bixby: HP MPE/iX

If anyone here would like to offload the FreeBSD 2.2-STABLE build 
or BSDI 2.1, I would be happy to do them.

I'm willing to do the branch and roll, but would like to read 
proper procedure from a knowledgable CVS person before doing this 
for the release.

Re: [STATUS] Wed Jun 4 16:04:54 EDT 1997

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:

> Well those who want to work on the 1.2 branch can just "cvs checkout -r
> APACHE_1_2 -d apache-1.2 apache" and as long as they don't "cvs update -A" 
> (which they won't unless they understand what they're doing ;) then cvs
> handles it behind your back.  Or am I forgetting something? 

No.  You need to include the branch tag because cvs lies when it tells you
branches are sticky. 

There are also many other gotchas that pop up.  500 line entries in the
CVS repository for a 1 line change on a branch anyone?  Yes, that is the
extreme case.  Nothing that can't be dealt with and, as I said, I would
prefer to just branch it, but people will be caught by some of them. 

Re: [STATUS] Wed Jun 4 16:04:54 EDT 1997

[Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>]

Well those who want to work on the 1.2 branch can just "cvs checkout -r
APACHE_1_2 -d apache-1.2 apache" and as long as they don't "cvs update -A" 
(which they won't unless they understand what they're doing ;) then cvs
handles it behind your back.  Or am I forgetting something? 

As long as someone who understands branches does the -j merging we should
be fine.  Oh yeah and the same group of someones has to create the branch
in the first place.

I'd kinda like it to stay in the same repository... but I can deal if it
isn't. 

Unless there's a concern that we'll be doing a lot of development on both
branches?  Is that it?  If so then for performance reasons two
repositories are necessary. 

Dean

On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Marc Slemko wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Randy Terbush wrote:
> 
> > I'm willing to do the branch and roll, but would like to read 
> > proper procedure from a knowledgable CVS person before doing this 
> > for the release.
> 
> I'm not sure we should branch.  Someone brought up the suggestion of using
> using a seperate module for 2.0 source and many agreed I think.
> 
> CVS doesn't really know about branches, they are just an illusion.  It can
> be quite confusing, especially for people that don't use them much.
> Having it branched makes it far easier to compare source between 1.2 and
> 2.0 code, but at the expense of making working with 1.2 code much more
> difficult.
> 
> Personally, I would just as well have the tree branch and keep it
> together, but I probably have a better understanding of CVS branches than
> some...
> 
> 

Re: [STATUS] Wed Jun 4 16:04:54 EDT 1997

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Randy Terbush wrote:

> I'm willing to do the branch and roll, but would like to read 
> proper procedure from a knowledgable CVS person before doing this 
> for the release.

I'm not sure we should branch.  Someone brought up the suggestion of using
using a seperate module for 2.0 source and many agreed I think.

CVS doesn't really know about branches, they are just an illusion.  It can
be quite confusing, especially for people that don't use them much.
Having it branched makes it far easier to compare source between 1.2 and
2.0 code, but at the expense of making working with 1.2 code much more
difficult.

Personally, I would just as well have the tree branch and keep it
together, but I probably have a better understanding of CVS branches than
some...