At 11:36 PM 11/24/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >No, it'd still be the case - an update isn't sufficient. I'd have to get a brand-new >checkout of httpd because my local working copy would refer to httpd-2.0. At best, I >might be able to run a script to tweak my CVS directories.
Correct; you couldn't commit back from your current tree, a simple .pl script could fix your CVS/Repository files. >I'd prefer that we start 2.1 on a new repository that doesn't have "2.0" in the name. > Yes, that means losing history of 2.0 in that repository. So, be it. >It's not all that important, and we've done this at every branch point before. OUTCH! The point to the 2.x history is that we DON'T lose the history! I'm guessing I was one of only 5 committers with an rsync of 1.2 when the chunk security hole bit us. History is very, very precious in a project this large. >Some of the operations take too long as it is because of the large history of some >files. Only if we have many branches; we propose very few. >Regardless, whatever we do must be planned and agreed to ahead of time. -- +++1; that was the point of my note and the basis to Roy's objections :-)
