Please apply 1.3 patches to 2.0 as well

[Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>]

I'd really appreciate it if people who wrote or are writing patches
for 1.3 would try to port their patches to 2.0 as well.  Trying to do
a remerge of the latest changes would be quite unfun, partly because
the 1.3 and 2.0 codebases are diverging, and partly because some
patches have actually been ported already, making the differences very
confusing potentially.

I will work on porting Marc's CSS patch, because of its importance
(and because he deserves a break). I ask that others who have written
committed patches in the 1.3 tree consider their relevance for 2.0 and
port their patches if it makes sense.

Re: Please apply 1.3 patches to 2.0 as well

[Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 07:42:11AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'd almost say that no patches be applied to 1.3 anymore unless
> they are also applied to 2.0 (if needed).

+1, if you remove the "almost" :).

Re: Please apply 1.3 patches to 2.0 as well

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 03:23:05AM -0800, Dale Ghent wrote:
> > > Also, we need to port in the 1.3.9 -> 1.3.11 changes, dont we? I am under
> > > the impression that the base code for 2.0 is 1.3.9 vintage (from looking
> > > at the CVS logs)
> > 
> > Well the goal of my plea was to convince people to port their changes.
> > Trying to merge in all the 1.3.9->1.3.13_dev changes would be
> > horrible, especially since some (not none, not all) of those changes
> > have been made in 2.0. It's far easier to just try to parallelize it
> > and get people to port their changes themselves.
> 
> the problem is that this is error prone.
> 
> we need to generate a 1.3.9->1.3.12 patch and start walking through it by
> hand to make sure every change has been brought forward.  it can be broken
> up into pieces... i'll go commit a file to 2.0/src which indicates what
> has been merged and what hasn't so folks can contribute/commit patches to
> bring things forward.

Does it make sense to tag 1.3 now, to specify the point where your
analysis was performed? e.g. use it as a baseline to look for future
patches to 1.3 that are not applied to 2.0?

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Re: Please apply 1.3 patches to 2.0 as well

[Dale Ghent <da...@elemental.org>]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Dean Gaudet wrote:

| we need to generate a 1.3.9->1.3.12 patch and start walking through it by
| hand to make sure every change has been brought forward.  it can be broken
| up into pieces... i'll go commit a file to 2.0/src which indicates what
| has been merged and what hasn't so folks can contribute/commit patches to
| bring things forward.

I've already tried doing this. I spent the other evening comparing the 1.3
CVS commits beginng early February to the current 2.0 tree, and alot of
the code that was in 1.3 is missing in 2.0. For example, porting in the
ServerName patch from Ken Coar cant be done because ap_set_version() was
remove from http_main.c and does not exist anywhere else (see
http://apache.org/websrc/cvsweb.cgi/apache-2.0/src/main/http_main.c.diff?r1=1.1&r2=1.2)
) I imagine this is true for many other funtions as well.

So, "up" porting the patches to 2.0 will probably require
re-implementation of things that have been removed.

/dale

Re: Please apply 1.3 patches to 2.0 as well

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

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 03:23:05AM -0800, Dale Ghent wrote:
> > Also, we need to port in the 1.3.9 -> 1.3.11 changes, dont we? I am under
> > the impression that the base code for 2.0 is 1.3.9 vintage (from looking
> > at the CVS logs)
> 
> Well the goal of my plea was to convince people to port their changes.
> Trying to merge in all the 1.3.9->1.3.13_dev changes would be
> horrible, especially since some (not none, not all) of those changes
> have been made in 2.0. It's far easier to just try to parallelize it
> and get people to port their changes themselves.

the problem is that this is error prone.

we need to generate a 1.3.9->1.3.12 patch and start walking through it by
hand to make sure every change has been brought forward.  it can be broken
up into pieces... i'll go commit a file to 2.0/src which indicates what
has been merged and what hasn't so folks can contribute/commit patches to
bring things forward.

Dean

Re: Please apply 1.3 patches to 2.0 as well

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 03:23:05AM -0800, Dale Ghent wrote:
> > Also, we need to port in the 1.3.9 -> 1.3.11 changes, dont we? I am under
> > the impression that the base code for 2.0 is 1.3.9 vintage (from looking
> > at the CVS logs)
> 
> Well the goal of my plea was to convince people to port their changes.
> Trying to merge in all the 1.3.9->1.3.13_dev changes would be
> horrible, especially since some (not none, not all) of those changes
> have been made in 2.0. It's far easier to just try to parallelize it
> and get people to port their changes themselves.

This is also a good reason to quickly ramp down development on 1.3.x.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Re: Please apply 1.3 patches to 2.0 as well

[Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 03:23:05AM -0800, Dale Ghent wrote:
> Also, we need to port in the 1.3.9 -> 1.3.11 changes, dont we? I am under
> the impression that the base code for 2.0 is 1.3.9 vintage (from looking
> at the CVS logs)

Well the goal of my plea was to convince people to port their changes.
Trying to merge in all the 1.3.9->1.3.13_dev changes would be
horrible, especially since some (not none, not all) of those changes
have been made in 2.0. It's far easier to just try to parallelize it
and get people to port their changes themselves.

Re: Please apply 1.3 patches to 2.0 as well

[Dale Ghent <da...@elemental.org>]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:

| I will work on porting Marc's CSS patch, because of its importance
| (and because he deserves a break). I ask that others who have written
| committed patches in the 1.3 tree consider their relevance for 2.0 and
| port their patches if it makes sense.

Also, we need to port in the 1.3.9 -> 1.3.11 changes, dont we? I am under
the impression that the base code for 2.0 is 1.3.9 vintage (from looking
at the CVS logs)

/dale