2010/10/7 Graham Leggett <[email protected]>: > 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. > > 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. >
To me, I only care two things, 1. trunk should be where the latest development is going on. 2. avoid to have two different development tree(fork) Seems to me, apr-util is merged into apr project and should have the same release cycle. apr-util should only be maintained for sustaining old releases but not new ones. My understanding could be wrong, this is why we need clarification for people like me. Cheers, Henry
