To: Paul Sutton <paul@ukweb.com>
Cc: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: Voting meta-discussion (was Re: cvs commit: apache/src
         mod_rewrite.h           Makefile.tmpl (fwd))
References: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961118173824.28058B-100000@star.ukweb.com>
From: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk>
Date: 18 Nov 1996 17:46:45 +0000
In-Reply-To: Paul Sutton's message of Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:59:17 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <57ohgvthx6.fsf@tees.elsevier.co.uk>
Lines: 30
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

Paul Sutton <paul@ukweb.com> writes:

>   3.  It is wrong to develop code on the principle of first
>       putting it into the current code then taking it out if it fails.
>       New code and features should be discussed first and tested before
>       being applied after an approval vote

I disagree with this. You're advocating that cvs be used to combine
code after it has been tested, this is going back to the patch-n-vote
days where we'd have to apply patches on our own boxes to test them
out before they go into cvs. This is very difficult to do, it was then
and it would be more so now, with more frequent contributions.

None of the strong advocates of voting have yet shown why the current
development practices are failing? Is Apache any less stable? My view
is that a hell of a lot more progress has been made since we started
using cvs than when we had to patch-n-vote.

>   4.  A feature freeze does not imply a free-for-all to commit their
>       favourite patches just prior to the freeze

This was hardly a free for all. The desire for a satisfy patch has
been there all along and all I did was take item no 1 off Rob's todo
list and actually do it.

-- 
  Paul Richards. Originative Solutions Ltd.  (Netcraft Ltd. contractor)
  Elsevier Science TIS online journal project.
  Email: p.richards@elsevier.co.uk
  Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 (0)1865 843155