On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote: >... > > + * Adopt an even/odd release paradigm (see VERSIONING) such that > > + even numbered releases are stable, and odd numbered releases > > + are development efforts, keeping in the tradition of Linux, > > + Perl, etc. In pratical terms, this implies C-T-R-T-C, where > > + patches are (generally) first applied to the development branch, > > + tested, and then (after vote) applied to the stable branch. > > + +1: wrowe > > + 0: > > + -1: > > + > > + * Branch APACHE_2_0_BRANCH today, changing the version in CVS HEAD > > + to 2.1.0-dev. > > + +1 [from APACHE_2_0_43]: wrowe > > + +1 [from HEAD]: > > + 0: > > + -1: > > We need matching apr and apr-util trees which are just as stable. > > That isn't necessarily what apr needs as it gears up for 1.0.
Note that APR has already decided on a versioning scheme (insofar as any decision is firm for longer than a few months :-). HTTPD should pick a version of APR and stick with that. In particular, it should stop trying to include the latest CVS into its source tree. As APR(UTIL) has stabilized, there is less and less of a reason for HTTPD to track HEAD. Of course, if HTTPD requires a change in APR(UTIL), then the right people can apply the patch, crank out a new dot release, and then you bounce the min requirement for APR(UTIL) in the HTTPD bits. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
