On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > On 07 Oct 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > >> 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. > > I disagree, in the past, we had two projects, each with an independent trunk > and release cycle, one called apr, the other called apr-util. We have chosen > to retire the apr-util project, and have copied the functionality into apr, > but that doesn't make the apr-util project go away.
Maybe we're disagreeing to agree ;) All I (we) mean by "apr is apr-util" trunk from a conceptual standpoint is that we expect new features to the "util" part of the code will go to apr trunk first, then potentially be backported to the apr-1.x-compatible "util" codebase (which happens to be in a separate tree). > We will still need to make releases on apr-util in the v1.x series, and we > may need to bump v1.3 to v1.4, etc. For this, we need a properly functional > trunk, otherwise those following the standard svn conventions face problems. yep
