--On Monday, November 25, 2002 12:21 AM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Um, the history is still available via CVS - just at a different
repos. I know that I did a checkout of apache-1.2 and also went to
ViewCVS to track down the chunking commit. The history is still
there - it's just disjoint. Our group precedent here is clearly to
create a new repository rather than using CVS branches. (And, even
now, I still think it's the right decision.)
Only if we have many branches; we propose very few.
I think this is where you and I diverge. I'm taking a very long
perspective in that over time, we would have many branches. For 2.1,
it might not be bad to have them coexist. But, in two years, we'll
probably be at 2.8/3.0 (if not beyond). That's a stable release
every six months which is about our plan, IIRC. I don't plan for our
CVS repositories to last that long. -- justin
