On 10/7/2010 5:29 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> We will still need to make releases on apr-util in the v1.x series, and we
> may need to
> bump v1.3 to v1.4, etc. For this, we need a properly functional trunk,
> otherwise those
> following the standard svn conventions face problems.
Yes, and no
2010/10/7 Graham Leggett :
> On 07 Oct 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>> These choices seem skewed to me. "apr is apr-util/trunk" is a
>> different concept than "rename 1.5.x to trunk." Conceptually, "apr is
>> apr-util trunk" whatever we decide.
>
> I disagree, in the past, we had two
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 07 Oct 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>> These choices seem skewed to me. "apr is apr-util/trunk" is a
>> different concept than "rename 1.5.x to trunk." Conceptually, "apr is
>> apr-util trunk" whatever we decide.
>
> I disagr
On 07 Oct 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
These choices seem skewed to me. "apr is apr-util/trunk" is a
different concept than "rename 1.5.x to trunk." Conceptually, "apr is
apr-util trunk" whatever we decide.
I disagree, in the past, we had two projects, each with an independent
tr
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
>> Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
>> the trunk for that tree now.
>
> Counting up the opinions posted on the list...
>
> [ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
> jo
Am 06.10.2010 18:20, schrieb Joe Orton:
1) The tip of development for the apr-util tree is what is currently
branches/1.5.x. Yes, most of that code also exists in the apr tree.
apr-util releases and branches do not come from the apr tree, they come
from the apr-util tree.
but here's the whole in
On 07 Oct 2010, at 1:13 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:26 -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
[ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
[ ] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance
wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier
Here is a stu
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:26 -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> [ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
> jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
>
> [ ] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance
> wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier
Here is a stupid idea: why don't we have both? We ca
Am 06.10.2010 21:26, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
the trunk for that tree now.
Counting up the opinions posted on the list...
[ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
jorton, rjung, minfri
On Oct 6, 2010, at 12:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> [ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
> jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
>
> [+1] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance
> wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier, sctemme
S.
--
san...@temme.net http://www.te
On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
> the trunk for that tree now.
Counting up the opinions posted on the list...
[ ] Rename 1.5.x to "trunk"
jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
[ ] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', st
On 06 Oct 2010, at 6:20 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
I don't really need the status quo "explained" to me in a README file.
I proposed to fix it, because it is (to me, obviously) broken.
1) The tip of development for the apr-util tree is what is currently
branches/1.5.x. Yes, most of that code also ex
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 01:17:19PM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
> On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> > Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
> > the trunk for that tree now.
>
> Let us know if Nick's suggested change satisfies, I've drafted a trunk
> which exp
+1
On Oct 5, 2010, at 3:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
> the trunk for that tree now.
>
> Regards, Joe
>
On 2010-10-05 at 11:24, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:33:04 -0500
> "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
>
>> On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
>> > Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
>> > the trunk for that tree now.
>>
>> -.5, because for the confu
On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
> the trunk for that tree now.
Let us know if Nick's suggested change satisfies, I've drafted a trunk
which explains things...
Bill
2010/10/5 Nick Kew :
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:33:04 -0500
> "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
>
>> On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
>> > Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
>> > the trunk for that tree now.
>>
>> -.5, because for the confusion it saves the dozen
On 10/5/2010 10:24 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> But it does perhaps highlight a need to be clearer about where we are.
> Might another idea be to have an apr-util/trunk/ containing nothing
> but a README explaining the situation?
+1
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:33:04 -0500
"William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
> On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> > Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
> > the trunk for that tree now.
>
> -.5, because for the confusion it saves the dozen of us, many more dozens
> wi
On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> It is the trunk for that tree now.
Actually you aren't correct... the trunk of apr-util/ development is
repos/asf/apr/apr/trunk/.
On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
> the trunk for that tree now.
-.5, because for the confusion it saves the dozen of us, many more dozens
will be confused by checking out apr and apr-util trunks as they have in
the pas
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
> the trunk for that tree now.
+1
On 05 Oct 2010, at 9:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
the trunk for that tree now.
+1, makes sense - it clears up the confusion over where "apr-util-
trunk" has gone.
Regards,
Graham
--
On 05.10.2010 09:40, Joe Orton wrote:
Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
the trunk for that tree now.
+1 (no objection) from me, I continuously need to remember "there is no
trunk because of the merging with apr".
Regards,
Rainer
Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is
the trunk for that tree now.
Regards, Joe
25 matches
Mail list logo