Why do this? Do people really feel a strong enough need to scratch an itch that they're willing to cause such grief? What will this gain us? I can't see any big wins from this - only a lot of effort being expended to get us where we are.
If we really, really need 2.1 then start a new repository. Call it anything you like, with/without numbers, but don't change an active repository name simply to satisfy an itch we don't all share or even recognise. -1 to the move. +1 to a new repository. david > Although I don't have the karma, I'll take the fallout and flak for > coming up with the idea (although not the initial objection) that > was raised for changing the repository's name from httpd-2.0 > to httpd. > > A couple folks have suggested we shouldn't use a branch for > various reasons. I mildly to strongly disagree with the reasons > given. Centralizing the history into a single repository is massive > goodness. Yes, with cvs this isn't an optimal and performant > solution, but it has worked just fine for Tomcat. We aren't speaking > of multiple oodles of branches, only one every blue moon (every > six months to a year, perhaps.) If and when we convert to SVN, > and the branch conversion bug is addressed and long gone, the > entire history of the project since 2.0.0 will be available in a single > place for all to review. That, I believe, is goodness. > > So, I then realized how badly this f*s things up without advance > notice and consideration to all the places (cvs commit messages, > viewcvs, et al) and folks (with active checkouts) that need to prepare > for the change. So thank you Roy for flipping the switch back to > 'normal' operations. > > So, proceeding on the idea that 2.X lives in a single repository, (which > was voted for a month with absolute concensus) where can we go from > here, and how do we have to prepare? > > Obviously, infrastructure needs to be involved, including apmail, viewcvs, > and other things I don't recognize at the moment. End users need time > to update their cvs checkouts to the new canonical location. Lets say > 45 days from the beginning of the changeover, with a headline in the > top level httpd.apache.org index.html and details in /dev/. > > So when we begin the changeover, how do we avoid becoming hopelessly > confused? I believe we begin with warning commiters about 15 days before, > then 5, then 2, then 1 day before the change. > > On that day, httpd-2.0 becomes httpd. All cvs apmail and viewcvs resources > are redirected at that time. httpd-2.0 becomes a module alias, WITH NO > COMMIT PRIVILAGES for any users. This way we don't have some > scattershot history of httpd-2.0 and httpd commits. > > Now, only committers were affected by that change, because everyone > can still check out httpd-2.0. Now over the next month and a half, we > encourage folks who follow the news that the repository name has changed. > We encourage them to change over in a short time, just as our friends > in Europe had to exchange their money not so long ago. > > Finally (before 2.2, certainly) this change becomes effective. The alias > to httpd-2.0 cvs repository disappears. Users scrambling to find out > what broke should be greeted again at httpd.apache.org/ and /dev/ to > news of how to fix it. > > Ken's change for htdocs was really a pita because existing checkouts > were simply broken. This isn't the case for this schema. You update > when you need to commit (and the system's informed you you cannot > commit.) Planned chaos rather than unanticipated chaos. > > Folks, any other observations besides apmail, viewcvs and the other > aspects we must consider before we contemplate a rename? > > Bill > >
