Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-07 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
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

Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-07 Thread Henry Jen
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

Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-07 Thread Jeff Trawick
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

Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-07 Thread 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 projects, each with an independent tr

Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-07 Thread Jeff Trawick
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

Re: apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-06 Thread Guenter Knauf
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

Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-06 Thread Graham Leggett
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

Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-06 Thread Bojan Smojver
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

Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-06 Thread Guenter Knauf
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

Re: [Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-06 Thread Sander Temme
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

[Vote] apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-06 Thread 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, minfrin, trawick, jim [ ] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', st

Re: apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-06 Thread Graham Leggett
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

Re: apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-06 Thread Joe Orton
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

Re: apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
+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 >

Re: apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-06 Thread Dan Poirier
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

Re: apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-05 Thread 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. Let us know if Nick's suggested change satisfies, I've drafted a trunk which explains things... Bill

Re: apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-05 Thread Henry Jen
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

Re: apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-05 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
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

Re: apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-05 Thread 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 of us, many more dozens > wi

Re: apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-05 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
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/.

Re: apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-05 Thread 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. -.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

Re: apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-05 Thread Jeff Trawick
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

Re: apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-05 Thread Graham Leggett
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 --

Re: apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-05 Thread Rainer Jung
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

apr-util 1.5.x -> trunk

2010-10-05 Thread Joe Orton
Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to "trunk"? It is the trunk for that tree now. Regards, Joe