You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Brian Havard <br...@kheldar.apana.org.au> on 2005/07/06 15:06:50 UTC
Re: svn commit: r209046 - /apr/apr/branches/1.0.x/file_io/os2/open.c
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:15:51 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>I'm not asking about Brian's patch, but how we are maintaining
>1.0.x/1.1.x branches...
>
>Can we declare these 'dead'? For all intents and purposes, anyone
>building 1.2.x has an ABI compatible flavor that can be substituted
>for a 1.0.x or 1.1.x version, right?
Good question. I'm not really clear on what the state of the different
branches is. I'm just committing all the way back to 0.9.x to make sure the
next httpd-2.0.x gets these bug fixes.
>Bill
>
>At 04:29 AM 7/4/2005, bjh@apache.org wrote:
>>Author: bjh
>>Date: Mon Jul 4 02:29:09 2005
>>New Revision: 209046
>>
>>URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=209046&view=rev
>>Log:
>>Bug #33844: OS/2: file opened with APR_CREATE would be truncated if APR_APPEND
>>wasn't also given.
>
>
>
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| Brian Havard | "He is not the messiah! |
| brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au | He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: svn commit: r209046 - /apr/apr/branches/1.0.x/file_io/os2/open.c
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 09:17:46AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On 7/6/05, Brian Havard <br...@kheldar.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:15:51 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > >I'm not asking about Brian's patch, but how we are maintaining
> > >1.0.x/1.1.x branches...
> > >
> > >Can we declare these 'dead'? For all intents and purposes, anyone
> > >building 1.2.x has an ABI compatible flavor that can be substituted
> > >for a 1.0.x or 1.1.x version, right?
> >
> > Good question. I'm not really clear on what the state of the different
> > branches is. I'm just committing all the way back to 0.9.x to make sure the
> > next httpd-2.0.x gets these bug fixes.
>
> I'm fuzzy when it comes to practical matters, such as who (if anybody)
> is the benificiary of those other branches. Aren't those theoretical
> beneficiaries better off in the long run if we concentrate our efforts
> on a fewer number of branches? (But we have to have a versioning
> policy that allows the fewer number of branches without slowing down
> the implementation of new features unnecessarily.)
Maintaining simple fixes on a "stable" 1.1.x branch is useful since it
means 1.1.x patch releases can be released on a whim regardless of the
state of the trunk. I share the general apathy about the the 1.0.x
branch.
joe
Re: svn commit: r209046 - /apr/apr/branches/1.0.x/file_io/os2/open.c
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On 7/6/05, Brian Havard <br...@kheldar.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:15:51 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> >I'm not asking about Brian's patch, but how we are maintaining
> >1.0.x/1.1.x branches...
> >
> >Can we declare these 'dead'? For all intents and purposes, anyone
> >building 1.2.x has an ABI compatible flavor that can be substituted
> >for a 1.0.x or 1.1.x version, right?
>
> Good question. I'm not really clear on what the state of the different
> branches is. I'm just committing all the way back to 0.9.x to make sure the
> next httpd-2.0.x gets these bug fixes.
I'm fuzzy when it comes to practical matters, such as who (if anybody)
is the benificiary of those other branches. Aren't those theoretical
beneficiaries better off in the long run if we concentrate our efforts
on a fewer number of branches? (But we have to have a versioning
policy that allows the fewer number of branches without slowing down
the implementation of new features unnecessarily.)