Re: Moving httpd-2.0 to Subversion
On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 06:13, Joe Schaefer wrote: Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Probably not worth it given all of the parallel development. Well, I'd rather see us using something like this: httpd/ apreq/ trunk/ branches/ tags/ +1, with more details: httpd-apreq current cvs should probably go to apreq/branches/1.3 and httpd-apreq-2 cvs can go to apreq/trunk. *nod* Also, will the apreq commit emails still be sent to apreq-cvs@, or will every commit to the httpd repository have to go to a common commit list? We can configure the mailer however we like (within boundaries of reason ofcourse :). Sander
Re: Moving httpd-2.0 to Subversion
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 06:13, Joe Schaefer wrote: [...] apreq/branches/1.3 and httpd-apreq-2 cvs can go to apreq/trunk. *nod* Correction: apreq/branches/1.x We've already released libapreq-1.3, and since we're still maintaining that codebase with the expectation of future releases, the minor version probably shouldn't be specified. -- Joe Schaefer
Re: Moving httpd-2.0 to Subversion
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:20:08 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: +1 Subversion still lacks a few features in commit notices, and I don't see the equivalent of viewcvs diff (must be hidden somewhere), but the developer interaction is much better. the latest CVS of Horde's Chors provids a viewcvs like interface to subversion (check svn.outoforder.cc) As well the CVS release of viewcvs itself. Also Paul Querna and I are working on an apache module to provide such an interface. http://www.outoforder.cc/projects/apache/mod_svn_view/ We hope to have this officially released before apachecon. What are we going to use for trunk names? httpd-1.3 and httpd-2? I wonder how hard it would be to make cvs2svn overlay apache-1.* with httpd-2.* into one httpd repo. Probably not worth it given all of the parallel development. Roy
Re: Moving httpd-2.0 to Subversion
On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 07:57 +0200, Sander Striker wrote: What are the barriers to moving to Subversion? Other than making the actual decision? None. I believe we might as well do it now, before we start on a new stable branch (2.2). Time for another Vote? Here's my +1. I should note though that we voted to move 1.3 ages ago, and I managed to drop the ball on that one. When I finally got around to processing the 1.3 converted CVS repository, Fitz had removed it from his homedir. cvs2svn has seen a release as well, and has been improved a lot since march. Infrastructure is now totally able to run the cvs2svn conversion itself. I fully intent to start on the 1.3 conversion tonight; this time without dropping the ball... Can we set a date for the httpd-2.0 conversion? Say in 10 days put a hold on all non-security commits and do the conversion?
Re: Moving httpd-2.0 to Subversion
On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 07:57 +0200, Sander Striker wrote: I can't believe I am not in this list... You made the proposal, but didn't say '+1', so at best, it was an implied vote. :)
Re: Moving httpd-2.0 to Subversion
Paul Querna wrote: The Original Proposal was in March of this year: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=10791831443r=2w=2 +1 Votes: Tom May Justin Erenkrantz Andr Malo Erik Abele Jim Jagielski Bill Stoddard Joe Orton +1 here, too. --Geoff
Re: Moving httpd-2.0 to Subversion
+1 Subversion still lacks a few features in commit notices, and I don't see the equivalent of viewcvs diff (must be hidden somewhere), but the developer interaction is much better. What are we going to use for trunk names? httpd-1.3 and httpd-2? I wonder how hard it would be to make cvs2svn overlay apache-1.* with httpd-2.* into one httpd repo. Probably not worth it given all of the parallel development. Roy
Re: Moving httpd-2.0 to Subversion
From: Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 7:34 AM Hi, The Original Proposal was in March of this year: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=10791831443r=2w=2 +1 Votes: Tom May Justin Erenkrantz Andr Malo Erik Abele Jim Jagielski Bill Stoddard Joe Orton I can't believe I am not in this list... -1 Votes: Aaron Bannert Aaron said: This will, at least for now, raise the bar to entry for contributors. [...] What are the barriers to moving to Subversion? Other than making the actual decision? None. I believe we might as well do it now, before we start on a new stable branch (2.2). Time for another Vote? Here's my +1. I should note though that we voted to move 1.3 ages ago, and I managed to drop the ball on that one. When I finally got around to processing the 1.3 converted CVS repository, Fitz had removed it from his homedir. cvs2svn has seen a release as well, and has been improved a lot since march. Infrastructure is now totally able to run the cvs2svn conversion itself. I fully intent to start on the 1.3 conversion tonight; this time without dropping the ball... Sander
