Re: 2.1 Fallout; httpd v.s. httpd-2.0

[Wilfredo Sánchez]

I'd suggest that 2.0 is a branch, and 2.1 is HEAD until we're ready to stabilize 2.1, then we make another branch, which (assuming we do the even is stable thing, or is it odd...whatever) may be called the 2.2 branch and HEAD becomes 2.3. Or something like that. Or leave the branch as 2.1 and HEAD becomes 2.2. Presumably the previous stable branch is end-of-lifed at that point.

But yes that means that releases may be interleaved, if we choose to release the HEAD version. That's not new. We're still releasing 1.3 concurrently with 2.0.

-wsv


On Monday, November 25, 2002, at 09:24 AM, Aaron Bannert wrote:

So are you suggesting that it might be better if we branch off smaller branches
for each major.minor release instead of just for each major release?

eg. For now we'll have 2.0 branch, 2.1 branch, 2.2 branch...
Would you propose 2.0.44 2.0.45 2.1.0 2.1.1 2.0.46 2.1.2 ... ?

I'm not entirely sure how that would work...