httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <>
Subject Re: Version Control
Date Tue, 05 Dec 1995 07:32:01 GMT
On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> No.  That's just not the way that numbering happens in other arenas.  
> Check it out - how many people pass up the X.0 version, waiting instead 
> for X.1, knowing that in *any* piece of new code there will be bugs and 
> problems waiting to get ferreted out by a large user base.  GCC 2.7.0 is 
> out, and I'm waiting till 2.7.1 at least before switching over to it.  
> Look at Windows 3.1.1... Netscape 1.1...  

I'm not disagreeing with you yet... (agreeing in fact)

> You basically outlined the same thing I did, but you added "Xbx" 
> notation, and I would have expected that to be the case anyways.  Yes, 
> 1.0 will be as bug free as *we* can make it, but it won't truly be 
> de-roached until the mass public has gotten a hold.


> What I'm trying to avoid is inconsistancy - say, 1.0.1-1.0.7 is a bug 
> fix, but then we add persistant connectins to 1.0.8, and people don't 
> pick up on it.

But my question is - when do we add persistant connections then? Between 
1.0.99 and 1.1? But in the case between 0.8.17 and 1.0, there *was* no in 
between. And if we wait forever for 1.1 to come out, people will get 
annoyed. But we can't just spend a couple days or weeks on "new 
features". It should be an ongoing process. What if I decide to patch 
persistent connections into Apache just after 1.1.0 comes out. Do I have 
to sit on the patch until it's time for 1.2.0?

> Sure, but an announcement goes out only at 1.1.0, 1.2.0, etc.

Fine. But again, when do we have the interim releases, with new features? 
Like the whole 0.3-0.6 set of releases. Or 0.8. It took us 17 releases to
get that straight, over a period of almost a year. 

> So, I *think* we're saying the same thing, you just added the notation 
> for early beta releases.

I'd take what you just said to be "early" to be most of the process. Let 
me recap what I am saying:

We just released Apache 1.0.0. As bugs develop (as they already have), we
release 1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc... 

But we can't just wait until Apache 1.0 is bugless (which it never will
be) to put in new features. We've been waiting too long already. Neither
can we release 1.1 right after we just released 1.0, with new features,
and it would be buggy anyway! And you don't want 1.0.x to have new
features. So now what? We're at an impasse. 

I am proposing to have a run in between 1.0.x and 1.1.0, which I am
calling 1.1bx. This would last for a *long* period of time, until
1.1b999, which could be in mid-96 or so, and would be stable and without
major bugs. We then call that 1.1.0, and start in with 1.2b1. 

See what I'm trying to say here? We need more time then you're giving us
with your plan. 

--/ Alexei Kosut <> /--------/ Lefler on IRC
----------------------------/ <>
The viewpoints expressed above are entirely false, and in no way
represent Alexei Kosut nor any other person or entity. /--------------

View raw message