>> I'd say use asf/perl/modperl for 2.0 and asf/perl/branches/1.0 for 1.0. > > > Well, I think we talked about this before,
yeah, but I can't recall what we said. for me, I know more about svn now than I did then, so maybe my opinions are different now :) > and really, mod_perl 1.x isn't > a branch of mod_perl-2.x. I guess I was thinking in terms of these two things: - svn idioms use trunk/ as a development base. our development base at this point is 2.0 so I think trunk/ ought to point there - httpd uses a branch for 1.3 (and 2.0). when 2.2 is released it will be a branch. I think it makes a certain amount of sense to follow this pattern (which is also similar for apr). that is, unless there is a good reason for us to break with our largest components (apr and httpd) we should probably just follow suit. > But, really, it's trivial to change after the > fact > if we don't like it. yeah, except there are docs to update and users to unconfuse. but sure, we can always shuffle it around if we need to. > I just want to get the infrastructure folks working on > this soon. I agree. does anyone else have strong feelings? really, I'm just bringing up points - if someone (anyone) is willing to take this on I'm not going to argue about how it looks :) --Geoff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
