Yeah, exactly. We had zero discussion on this change. And, it's a bad change, IMHO. People shouldn't be making such drastic changes without some sort of discussion!Since we renamed the repository to httpd from httpd-2.0 (there is a symlink for now), the CVSROOT/avail file doesn't match the repository name, and therefore I can't commit. Can we fix that so I can commit to the new "httpd" repository directly?Why the heck was that done? Too many things get screwed over when you change a module name in cvs.
IMHO, httpd-2.0 must always be the definitive repository for Apache HTTP Server 2.0. If we physically split the 2.1/(2.2/3.0) repositories, we can then change the name (please discuss this first). Note that 2.0 shouldn't be housed there, since it once authoritatively lived in httpd-2.0. ISTR the big snafu when Ken 'renamed' the httpd-docs repository. That should have warned us that such moves are a horrible idea.
I know Subversion has lots of drawbacks (I know of at least 2 committers who will veto it outright), but remember that branches in CVS kill performance (really due to the now anachronistic RCS format and how it stores branches). It's going to be a PITA performance-wise if we have a long-lived CVS repository. So, I think there is a strong benefit to creating httpd-2.1 and then httpd-2.2 and so on. I'm afraid by the time that we hit httpd 2.9 (say), we're going to be in a world of hurt on the 'stable' branches due to CVS's inability to scale with active branches. -- justin
