On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> 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. > > Counting up the opinions posted on the list... > > [ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk" > jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim > > [ ] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance > wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier
These choices seem skewed to me. "apr is apr-util/trunk" is a different concept than "rename 1.5.x to trunk." Conceptually, "apr is apr-util trunk" whatever we decide. The question is whether the latest apr-1.x-compatible apr-util is apr-util trunk or apr-util 1.5.x (today; could be apr-util 1.6.x next month). It's no huge deal to me, but I vote for "the latest apr-1.x-compatible apr-util is apr-util trunk."
