apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Future tag plans
Date Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:27:58 GMT
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2009, at 2:01 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> 
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Tag as what? Alpha? Beta? GA?? :)
>> Tag vanilla.  Group decides the level of the release.
> 
> I think you're missing my point. Why tag now? If it's to make
> httpd's life easier, then why when I suggest it, it's a bad idea
> but when you do, it's a good one? What is so bad about seeing
> what needs to be done and tagging at a point in time when we're
> ready, not because "we 'have' to"?

My point w.r.t. your suggestion earlier (and note Paul and I didn't
do this) is to say 'ok, code freeze for a month until I tag'.  What
I and Paul suggested was the opposite, which was 'fix everything you
can, tag coming in a week'.  Nobody is held up for a month waiting.
The difference is between facilitation and impediments to a release.

> If the intent is to tag so we have a common ground in which to
> determine readiness, then that wasn't clear and I'm all +1 on that.

Yes, the tag suggested at httpd would be to see 'how close', and
could have happened the day you posted your intent to T&R httpd.  And
that is exactly the tag Paul created last week on a few days notice.

Not on the 1.4 APR side, it should be ready to release.  And if not, those
issues should be identified in STATUS.  We are CTR with branches stable
at any given time, trunk un-[semi-?]stable.  This is *apr*, not -util that
I'm discussing.

I can agree with Paul that if something happens on 2.0 to reopen the
discussion of API's and people begin to refactor, that tag shouldn't
happen in an arbitrary time frame.  And we might need a revised plan,
yes, because it is a non-trivial-problem to tag a precise 2.0.0 that
reflects on the entire 2.x.x release line.

With SVN folks joining us at the foundation, I sure hope they pipe up
with their interests and concerns around apr to help along 2.0.  In fact
given the 1.7 release plan in Feb(?) timeframe, this could make sense.



Mime
View raw message