Mark Thomas wrote: > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > > [X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns > > as well as the problems which started this whole > > thing. > > [ ] 0. Whatever. > > [ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons: > > > > With the following caveats: > > - There is only one dev branch. I am -1 for creating separate dev > branches for 3.3.x, 4.1.x, 5.0.x and 5.5.x on the grounds it is too much > overhead for branches that are in maintenance mode where 99% of the > patches will be ported from 6.x > > - Where a patch for 3, 4 or 5 is required that just doesn't make sense > in the dev branch then the patch is applied using RTC. > > - We review this process in 3 months time to see if it is providing the > expected benefits without excessive overheads. > > - We improve the "Which version?" web page to make clear which branches > are supported and at what level. I'll start a wiki page as a draft of this. > > - The "Get involved" pages are updated to document this process
FWIW, under httpd there is not a 1.3 dev/release branch pair, nor is there "really" one for 2.0. So No, I don't think that such a pair is required for any codebase which is in maint mode, just for those undergoing active development. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball." --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
