httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <ako...@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Date Mon, 12 Jan 1998 01:11:16 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Rob Hartill wrote:

> A slow 2.0 will mean a long shelflife for 1.3, which means people
> spending time on both trees instead of 2.0.  That's what we have with
> 1.2 and 1.3 now. My point is that without a plan to get 2.0 out in under
> 3 months (say), 1.3 will need supporting and that'll slow down 2.0 which
> means 1.3 needs yet more support and so on.

Regardless, I don't think this has any bearing on the current discussion.
Consider: Apache 1.3 will need X amount of time to be released if we do
not work on 2.0 consecutively. If we also work on 2.0, Apache 1.3 will
need X' time to be released, with X' < X if we stick with only bug and
Win32 fixes. Apache 2.0 will take Y amount of time to be completed if we
start coding it after 1.3.0 ships. It will take Y' time if we start now.
It is probable that Y' > Y, but I would venture to say that X + Y < Y'
(note that Y' > X' by definition). And that Y' - X' < Y.

Now, X, X', Y and Y' are all dependent on many factors, but the above
analysis suggests that starting a 2.0 branch now, even with no plan
or schedule whatsoever, will mean *less* shelf time for 1.3, not more, as
you suggest.

And, honestly, once we have a 1.3.0 we like, I don't think we'll spend
much time maintaining it.

-- Alexei Kosut <akosut@stanford.edu> <http://www.stanford.edu/~akosut/>
   Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <http://www.apache.org> *



Mime
View raw message