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
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
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
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? :)
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
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
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
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
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 ???
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
