httpd-cvs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Date Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:53:19 GMT
gstein      2003/02/27 04:53:19

  Modified:    .        Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
  trawick wanted commentary in STATUS rather than on the mailing list. fine...
  Revision  Changes    Path
  No                   revision
  No                   revision
  1.751.2.130 +76 -4     httpd-2.0/STATUS
  Index: STATUS
  RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/STATUS,v
  retrieving revision 1.751.2.129
  retrieving revision 1.751.2.130
  diff -u -r1.751.2.129 -r1.751.2.130
  --- STATUS	27 Feb 2003 12:33:06 -0000	1.751.2.129
  +++ STATUS	27 Feb 2003 12:53:15 -0000	1.751.2.130
  @@ -165,8 +165,11 @@
         of APR (i.e., 1.0).
         no:   trawick, jerenkrantz, wrowe, stoddard, striker, nd, gregames
  -        wrowe adds it's nice if we *can* compile against it, but as
  -        a matter of a practical tarball or binary release, don't.
  +        wrowe: it's nice if we *can* compile against it, but as a
  +               matter of a practical tarball or binary release, don't.
  +        gstein: the Q is unclear. of course it has to work with an
  +                official version. maybe the Q is really "we *require*
  +                a stable version" ?
       * APACHE_2_0_BRANCH uses a level of apr and apr-util code branched
         from the APACHE_2_0_44 tag.
  @@ -193,7 +196,76 @@
          R-T-C:   trawick, wrowe, jerenkrantz, stoddard, rederpj, striker, nd,
                   gregames(lazy consensus OK for mainline)
  -       C-T-R:   BrianP, aaron, jim
  +       C-T-R:   BrianP, aaron, jim, gstein
  +       gstein: we have an open branch, so there is an easy release
  +               valve for feature and API changes. we trust developers
  +               to put their changes in the right place. if they
  +               *don't*, that is what the -T-R is all about, and why we
  +               have source control.
  +               yes, the branch should be "bug fix only" or other
  +               voted-upon feature changes, but we already have
  +               guidelines for all that.
  +               see the section titled "Product Changes" and the
  +               following paragraph which states:
  +               "... All product changes to a prior-branch (old
  +               version) repository require consensus before the change
  +               is committed."
  +               And under "When to Commit a Change", first line:
  +               "Ideas must be review-then-commit; patches can be
  +               commit-then-review."
  +               The problem here is that R-T-C expresses a fundamental
  +               DISTRUST of your peers. We had problems stabilizing the
  +               code simply because there are numerous interests in the
  +               codebase, and those are not fully compatible. With the
  +               branch, we have partitioned the interest: bug fix vs
  +               new features. But developers *know* when a bug fix
  +               should be applied or should not. There is no reason to
  +               tell a developer they are wrong, and their basic
  +               understanding of what is broken and what needs to be
  +               fixed is subject to peer review. Once you have a bug
  +               fix in hand, it isn't rocket science. And, always,
  +               there is the option to pull a fix back out if a
  +               developer goofs. We all goof, but there is no sense in
  +               ASSUMING that incorrect behavior is the norm.
  +               If a develop consistently causes problems, then we have
  +               ways of dealing with that. But at the moment, this
  +               isn't the case, and it does not foster a healthy
  +               environment to apply that label to ALL developers.
  +               R-T-C is fundamentally "you're guilty of bad behavior,
  +               with no way to prove innocence. all your actions are
  +               hereby monitored."
  +               Why did I wait so long to issue this commentary? Simply
  +               because I disagreed with it at such a fundamental level
  +               that I didn't want to deal with it. Also, that I
  +               *wasn't* going to deal with it when I had changes to
  +               commit. But now we're seeing this stupid R-T-C hammer
  +               being used to smack developers over the head. That is
  +               inappropriate when the bug fixes they are committing to
  +               the branch are entirely reasonable and appropriate. The
  +               hammer simply should not exist.
  +               Yes, I'm ranting, and hey, I'm even sober. :-) R-T-C is
  +               Badness. If I could veto the policy, I would. If I can
  +               ignore it, I will. For years, this group was built on
  +               the notion of peer respect and trust. R-T-C destroys
  +               that, and makes the environment less cozy and less
  +               inviting. Our polcies and procedures were designed to
  +               operate successfully in a C-T-R environment; there is
  +               no need for such a draconian policy.
  +               Bleh.
       * httpd-std.conf and friends;

View raw message