Re: Apache 2.1/2.2/2.3...
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:49:12PM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote: Sander Striker wrote: The latter should never happen. Develop on trunk, merge back to stable: 2.2 branch, or 2.2 branch and 2.0 branch. At least, that's what I envisioned after all the discussion on how to move on with the branch/versioning scheme. The problem is that doing a typo fix in the docs can wind up taking me a good half-hour in this model. So I just don't do it much anymore. FWIW, I use: http://people.apache.org/~jorton/svn.merge which makes the merge process less painful. $ svn ci -m some fix ... Committed revision 123456. $ cd ../httpd-2.2.x $ svn.merge 123456 ... $ svn ci -F clog joe
Re: Apache 2.1/2.2/2.3...
Joe Orton wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:49:12PM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote: Sander Striker wrote: The latter should never happen. Develop on trunk, merge back to stable: 2.2 branch, or 2.2 branch and 2.0 branch. At least, that's what I envisioned after all the discussion on how to move on with the branch/versioning scheme. The problem is that doing a typo fix in the docs can wind up taking me a good half-hour in this model. So I just don't do it much anymore. FWIW, I use: http://people.apache.org/~jorton/svn.merge which makes the merge process less painful. Nice. Thanks! -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Re: Apache 2.1/2.2/2.3...
Brad Nicholes wrote: I think we all agree that all of the backporting and sync'ing sucks but I don't see any other way of doing this. At some point 2.2 has to branch, stabilize and finally release. In a perfect world releasing 2.2 would happen immediately after branching it so that no backporting or sync'ing would be required. The problem is that the world we are in isn't even close to perfect. So in order to minimize the pain, we should be putting our efforts into stabilizing and releasing 2.2. Then hopefully and within a reasonable time period, the 2.0 branch will just fade away so that we don't have to worry about it much any more. My opinion is that you could get the same effect while keeping head as the source of 2.2 until much closer to a final release. Just say that anything major should be developed on a temporary branch and not on head until 2.2 is released and we move head to 2.3/2.4. That puts the backporting/merging weight on the people who want to expiriment, rather than putting it on people who want to bug fix and stabilize. Joshua.
Re: Apache 2.1/2.2/2.3...
Jim Jagielski wrote: Could someone explain to me what the current thinking is about the httpd SVN trunk? Is it 2.3.0? 2.1.x? Where does 2.2 fit in all this? So patches made to HEAD/trunk need to be backported to 2.2, and 2.1 and then 2.0 ??? Trunk is always open development. Nothing should stop someone from hacking on anything here. It is 2.3-dev. It will never become 2.2.x. 2.2.x branch will become 2.2.0, someday. It is currently 2.1.8-dev, and it is CTR. My preference is to focus on back porting bug fixes only. If a new bug fix is made in trunk and backported to 2.0, we should do it here too. My goal is to put out another beta every couple weeks. Fix the bugs found in the last beta, and repeat until we have something ready for GA. The 2.0 branch is the same as always.
Re: Apache 2.1/2.2/2.3...
Paul Querna wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: Could someone explain to me what the current thinking is about the httpd SVN trunk? Is it 2.3.0? 2.1.x? Where does 2.2 fit in all this? So patches made to HEAD/trunk need to be backported to 2.2, and 2.1 and then 2.0 ??? Trunk is always open development. Nothing should stop someone from hacking on anything here. It is 2.3-dev. It will never become 2.2.x. 2.2.x branch will become 2.2.0, someday. It is currently 2.1.8-dev, and it is CTR. My preference is to focus on back porting bug fixes only. If a new bug fix is made in trunk and backported to 2.0, we should do it here too. My goal is to put out another beta every couple weeks. Fix the bugs found in the last beta, and repeat until we have something ready for GA. The 2.0 branch is the same as always. Just so this is clear to everyone. If people make changes and improvements to trunk, if you have any desire to have them eventually show up in 2.2, you should backport to the 2.2 branch. PLUS you should also follow the 2.0 branch and potentially backport stuff there. So 2.2 is NOT being split from trunk, but now exists in it's own branch. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Re: Apache 2.1/2.2/2.3...
Jim Jagielski wrote: Could someone explain to me what the current thinking is about the httpd SVN trunk? Is it 2.3.0? 2.1.x? Where does 2.2 fit in all this? So patches made to HEAD/trunk need to be backported to 2.2, and 2.1 and then 2.0 ??? Does anyone else think this is more complex than it needs to be? :) I thought so... but the list disagreed and nobody else had any issues with the branch. So trunk is 2.3-dev. Bill
Re: Apache 2.1/2.2/2.3...
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: Could someone explain to me what the current thinking is about the httpd SVN trunk? Is it 2.3.0? 2.1.x? Where does 2.2 fit in all this? So patches made to HEAD/trunk need to be backported to 2.2, and 2.1 and then 2.0 ??? Does anyone else think this is more complex than it needs to be? :) I thought so... but the list disagreed and nobody else had any issues with the branch. So trunk is 2.3-dev. My confusion deals with how patches are synced... Patches I applied to TRUNK made it to the 2.2 branch after it was branched, it appears. I fear that just as viable patches are being missed from being folded into 2.0, it will be even worse between TRUNK and 2.2, simply because they track SO close now. Or, conversely, stuff folded into the 2.2 branch may not end up in trunk. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Re: Apache 2.1/2.2/2.3...
Jim Jagielski wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: Could someone explain to me what the current thinking is about the httpd SVN trunk? Is it 2.3.0? 2.1.x? Where does 2.2 fit in all this? So patches made to HEAD/trunk need to be backported to 2.2, and 2.1 and then 2.0 ??? Does anyone else think this is more complex than it needs to be? :) I thought so... but the list disagreed and nobody else had any issues with the branch. So trunk is 2.3-dev. My confusion deals with how patches are synced... Patches I applied to TRUNK made it to the 2.2 branch after it was branched, it appears. I fear that just as viable patches are being missed from being folded into 2.0, it will be even worse between TRUNK and 2.2, simply because they track SO close now. Or, conversely, stuff folded into the 2.2 branch may not end up in trunk. The latter should never happen. Develop on trunk, merge back to stable: 2.2 branch, or 2.2 branch and 2.0 branch. At least, that's what I envisioned after all the discussion on how to move on with the branch/versioning scheme. Sander
Re: Apache 2.1/2.2/2.3...
I think we all agree that all of the backporting and sync'ing sucks but I don't see any other way of doing this. At some point 2.2 has to branch, stabilize and finally release. In a perfect world releasing 2.2 would happen immediately after branching it so that no backporting or sync'ing would be required. The problem is that the world we are in isn't even close to perfect. So in order to minimize the pain, we should be putting our efforts into stabilizing and releasing 2.2. Then hopefully and within a reasonable time period, the 2.0 branch will just fade away so that we don't have to worry about it much any more. Brad On Friday, September 16, 2005 at 1:49:12 pm, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sander Striker wrote: The latter should never happen. Develop on trunk, merge back to stable: 2.2 branch, or 2.2 branch and 2.0 branch. At least, that's what I envisioned after all the discussion on how to move on with the branch/versioning scheme. The problem is that doing a typo fix in the docs can wind up taking me a good half-hour in this model. So I just don't do it much anymore. Joshua.
