On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 01:17:19PM -0500, William Rowe 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. > > Let us know if Nick's suggested change satisfies, I've drafted a trunk > which explains things...
I don't really need the status quo "explained" to me in a README file. I proposed to fix it, because it is (to me, obviously) broken. 1) The tip of development for the apr-util tree is what is currently branches/1.5.x. Yes, most of that code also exists in the apr tree. apr-util releases and branches do not come from the apr tree, they come from the apr-util tree. 2) I have hard-coded into my brain the convention that the trunk is the trunk, not a branch named by its current version. I also have scripts which make this assumption. 3) The trunk called branches/1.5.x will have to be renamed to a trunk called branches/1.6.x if 1.5.x gets cut. Which is dumb. 4) Yes, "people" might get confused if they try to use apr-util's trunk with the APR 2.x, but, meh. We are the people who use the VCS and it should be arranged for our convenience. Regards, Joe
