httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <>
Subject Re: [STATUS] 1.3b1: Tue Sep 30 10:00:33 PDT 1997
Date Tue, 30 Sep 1997 23:51:57 GMT
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:

> I'd be happy with us releasing 1.3.0 now and calling it unstable ;)  We'd
> be closer to target then! 
> Seriously, I don't mind a naming scheme that goes 1.3.0, 1.3.1, ... and we
> periodically call things stable releases.  But I'm not up for debating
> this stuff, status quo works for me. 

It's interesting. Back before 1.1, we did work that way. 0.8.0-0.8.14,
for examine, none of which were even remotely "stable" :) This was
neccessary because

  a) Most of the people using Apache were developers, so there wasn't
     a real point to differentiating reliable or reference releases
     (or at least, we didn't care to).

  b) There was no "development" source. We collected patches and put
     them together to form a new release. The only way to make sure
     that the developers could coherently code anything was to make lots of
     releases, to keep people in sync.

Then we discovered CVS. CVS is great, but it means that any of *us*
can get a current release, with everyone's accepted patches, by typing
a few characters. I'd bet that most of the developers here run -dev
versions of Apache on their own sites; there isn't as much direct
impetus to make a real release.

But also, we've adopted a very commercial (if you will) viewpoint to
release management, where a final release, e.g. 1.3.0, is final. It's
supposed to work perfectly. Even our beta releases are "supposed" to
be close to finished, just with some bugs to fix. There's nothing
wrong with this, it's just the way we work.

Very different from, say, the Linux development model, which works
more like how Apache used to, circa 0.7, where Linus will (and this is
secondhand knowledge) sometimes release kernels without even checking
to see if they compile first.

In a recent thread I saw somewhere on bazaar vs. cathedral styles of
product management, someone mentioned Apache as a bazzar-oriented
product. I just had to laugh...We may not have a Pope, but we are
definitely an organized religion :)

On a more real note; Ben: You say you're voting +1 for 1.3b1. Does
that mean you've solved all the issues neccessary to make an
acceptable Windows binary that we can distribute and idiots can
install and make working without too much trouble (and some

Unforunately, I still don't have a Windows machine. I should soon,
some way or another. However, I've discovered I can use CodeWarrior on
my Mac to cross-compile to Windows (it comes with the full set of
Microsoft libraries and headers, as well) as an x86
compiler/linker. Something tells me, however, this is not the best way
of doing Windows development...

-- Alexei Kosut <>

View raw message