From dev-return-22541-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Thu Nov 12 19:28:33 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 28547 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2009 19:28:32 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Nov 2009 19:28:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 14039 invoked by uid 500); 12 Nov 2009 19:28:32 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 13943 invoked by uid 500); 12 Nov 2009 19:28:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 13935 invoked by uid 99); 12 Nov 2009 19:28:32 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:28:32 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [64.202.165.30] (HELO smtpauth19.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net) (64.202.165.30) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:28:23 +0000 Received: (qmail 5163 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2009 19:28:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (76.252.112.72) by smtpauth19.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.30) with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2009 19:28:00 -0000 Message-ID: <4AFC61BE.50600@rowe-clan.net> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:27:58 -0600 From: "William A. Rowe Jr." User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Jagielski CC: APR Developer List Subject: Re: Future tag plans References: <4AFB4B0D.2080800@rowe-clan.net> <5D36E3FC-0E35-489A-B077-99B012A475F6@jaguNET.com> <4AFC5B74.1090009@rowe-clan.net> <29377D1D-B346-45F7-B9AA-AEFE84D02FC9@jaguNET.com> In-Reply-To: <29377D1D-B346-45F7-B9AA-AEFE84D02FC9@jaguNET.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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.