Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of chris.custine@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.251 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=HcIxgGrENNbvxX6toj+XfcT7bSOv/D8sgSCqOzuQtBBs+eObn940U7YZ6HR0DzmQqtOMqZuaaO7KO7PsAnEG3yfK9Eo/uGa2InV+Vlr/wv/I6fiFjzmQwB+ooAQjuovN/GydMJXaAZFaLGd6JG3YXykdEGEu/ln+GHQUejtCm3k=
Message-ID: <43b026c70709251143l43fb6427ve538f6e4c0ff1144@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:43:29 -0600
From: "Chris Custine" <ccustine@apache.org>
Sender: chris.custine@gmail.com
To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Applying large scale changes to 1.5.x branch (trunk)
In-Reply-To: <a32f6b020709251118n376783e6sd191740b71ec33b3@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_3287_19413415.1190745809973"
References: <a32f6b020709251118n376783e6sd191740b71ec33b3@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_3287_19413415.1190745809973
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

[ ] Option #1: Continue making moderate to large scale changes in 1.5 branch
which effect standalone
    and embedding users.
[x] Option #2: Create separate branch (2.5) for these kinds of changes while
trying to release a 2.0 sooner
    without a major impact to the user base.
[ ] Undecided.

On 9/25/07, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Looks like we have a few people talking about the pro's and con's of how
> to go about making large
> scale changes to the server which could effect users and our documentation
> effort around user guides
> etc.  We have two options for this vote and some explanation is given
> about each option along with it's
> pros and cons so you can better evaluate an option.
>
> [ ] Option #1: Continue making moderate to large scale changes in 1.5branch which effect standalone
>     and embedding users.
> [ ] Option #2: Create separate branch (2.5) for these kinds of changes
> while trying to release a 2.0 sooner
>     without a major impact to the user base.
> [ ] Undecided.
>
> Pro's and Con's of options listed below.  Perhaps others might add more
> but we can just rename the
> subject perhaps for that and use this thread for just counting votes.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> Option #1 Pros
> ----------------------
> Reduces work of maintaining several branches
> Changes go in now rather than later which have to effect users anyway
> Gets a 2.0 out quicker but not by much
>
> Option #1 Cons
> -----------------------
> Delays 2.0 release marginally
> Increases amount of change on documentation and the site
> Forces users to change the server.xml which already happens when moving
> from 1.0-> 1.5
> Contradicts our strategy for having stable and experimental branches
>
>
>
> ==========================
>
>
>
> Option #2  Pros
> -----------------------
> Keeps users who are using 1.5 already happy since they have to change
> relatively little to move to 2.0
> Less changes to existing documentation although new documentation area
> will be needed eventually
> Completely free area to introduce dramatic changes (no worries about
> users)
> Could bring features faster into server to avoid feature deadlock due to
> architectural hurdles in 1.5
>
> Option #2 Cons
> ----------------------
> Yet another branch to manage.
> Distracts developers from 1.5 work
>
>
>
>

------=_Part_3287_19413415.1190745809973
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

[ ] Option #1: Continue making moderate to large scale changes in 
1.5 branch which effect standalone <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and embedding users.<br>[x] Option #2: Create separate branch (2.5) for these kinds of changes while trying to release a 2.0 sooner <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; without a major impact to the user base.
<br>[ ] Undecided.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/25/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Alex Karasulu</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:akarasulu@apache.org">akarasulu@apache.org</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi all,<br><br>Looks like we have a few people talking about the pro&#39;s and con&#39;s of how to go about making large<br>scale changes to the server which could effect users and our documentation effort around user guides
<br>etc.&nbsp; We have two options for this vote and some explanation is given about each option along with it&#39;s<br>pros and cons so you can better evaluate an option.<br><br>[ ] Option #1: Continue making moderate to large scale changes in 
1.5 branch which effect standalone <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and embedding users.<br>[ ] Option #2: Create separate branch (2.5) for these kinds of changes while trying to release a 2.0 sooner <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; without a major impact to the user base.
<br>[ ] Undecided.<br><br>Pro&#39;s and Con&#39;s of options listed below.&nbsp; Perhaps others might add more but we can just rename the <br>subject perhaps for that and use this thread for just counting votes.<br><br>Alex<br>

<br><br><br>Option #1 Pros<br>----------------------<br>Reduces work of maintaining several branches<br>Changes go in now rather than later which have to effect users anyway<br>Gets a 2.0 out quicker but not by much<br><br>

Option #1 Cons<br>-----------------------<br>Delays 2.0 release marginally<br>Increases amount of change on documentation and the site<br>Forces users to change the server.xml which already happens when moving from 1.0-&gt;
1.5<br>Contradicts our strategy for having stable and experimental branches<br><br><br><br>==========================<br><br><br><br>Option #2&nbsp; Pros<br>-----------------------<br>Keeps users who are using 1.5 already happy since they have to change relatively little to move to 
2.0<br>Less changes to existing documentation although new documentation area will be needed eventually<br>Completely free area to introduce dramatic changes (no worries about users)<br>Could bring features faster into server to avoid feature deadlock due to architectural hurdles in 
1.5<br><br>Option #2 Cons<br>----------------------<br>Yet another branch to manage.<br>Distracts developers from 1.5 work<br><br><br><br>
</blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_3287_19413415.1190745809973--