httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chuck Murcko <ch...@n2k.com>
Subject Re: 1.3 veto ?
Date Fri, 10 Jan 1997 05:11:33 GMT
Rob Hartill liltingly intones:
> 
> If 2.0 can be turned around in the short time claimed, then that's
> great. As Alexei says, 1.2's 1 month turned into 6. What will 2.0's
> 6 months turn into ?
> 
> <rant>
> Nobody seems to take any notice of timetables - that's the major problem IMO.
> Another problem is the sheer lack of input/feedback from 90% of the people
> on this list. Unless tey are contributing in some other way, I think the
> least everyone can do is testcode snapshots every week or two, even if it's
> just to see if things compile. 1.2 would be released by know had it gotten
> the wider testing it could have.
> 
> What makes people think things are going to be better developing 2.0 ?
> 
> Is anyone prepared to set a timetable *and* make sure we stick to it ?
> If there is, we might not need 1.3, if there isn't ....
> </rant>
> 
Rob's rant hits several nails on the head.

Given the structure of the group, we all have to commit to getting this done.
As Rob rightly observes, the less commitment, the longer the development
cycle. A release tsar won't help; it has to be a group effort. The hard
part is hitting deadlines, but if we can't do it, we're sunk.

Right now, it almost seems like we're in beta burnout. Bug fixes aren't
getting voted on, and there's no clear deadline for even the next beta.
1.2 feels like it's starting to dissipate. That needs to change.
We can set the stage for 2.0 well, if we get 1.2 back on track.

Remember, we're not starting from scratch with 2.0, either. As Alexei points
out, there's an abstraction layer that lets us fold in existing modules now.

chuck
Chuck Murcko	N2K Inc.	Wayne PA	chuck@telebase.com
And now, on a lighter note:
A celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness.

Mime
View raw message