apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: veto on addition of ssl, evp code
Date Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:31:15 GMT
On Apr 15, 2008, at 5:55 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> The solution is simple: leave it on trunk, remove it from the  
> v1.3.0 branch until the issues are resolved, so that the folks  
> wanting to see v1.3.0 released are not prevented from making that  
> happen. I don't think anybody would have objected to the suggestion  
> to do so.

Actually, trunk is supposed to be what we are all working on together
(in its currently working form).  In a CTR model, it is fairly important
that objections to the current trunk be addressed immediately, either in
the form of a correction or a revert, since otherwise a whole bunch
of people sit around waiting for the change to occur before continuing.

If an objection cannot be resolved immediately, then the accepted
mechanism is to revert on trunk and continue work on a separate
feature branch or sandbox (easily done by copying the trunk and
re-applying the revert to a branch of trunk in reverse mode).
That gives anyone working on the problem the ability to resolve
the objections on their own schedule (or abandon them without
harming group progress).  Note that this imposes extra work on the
person wanting the change, as opposed to imposing extra work on
everyone else to work around the incomplete trunk.

I am kind of annoyed that a branch was done for 1.3.x before any
release of 1.3.0.  My opinion is that encourages folks to think of
trunk as a dumping ground, which is fundamentally bad because trunk
is the basis for collaboration.  However, since Bill is the likely RM,
I assume he has some plan in mind that I haven't considered.


View raw message