httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Hartill <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apachen STATUS
Date Fri, 09 Jan 1998 02:38:01 GMT
On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> I've always been one for quick cycles... the bad point is that
> it means that we _have to_ say STOP, no more features or neat
> things after this point and stick with it. But then people get
> upset because this _really_ is a neat feature and should be in.
> We can't have it both ways. If we want fast releases (meaning quick
> betas and more time for fun) then we need to make Release Manager
> a "position" with balls. This makes sense to me. I think we _need_
> this.

what I was thinking of was not having beta cycles at all. If the code
is stable at a specific point it can be released. 'stable' is then
defined to be less stringent than it is now (which is why 1.2 and 1.3
take forever to release).

e.g.  2 months after 1.3 we could release 1.4. Common sense means you
don't throw a big change in a week before a release (unless it's #ifdef'ed
out by default).

These long beta cycles are failing miserably IMO.

I can't remember any time when what was in the CVS was considered
unstable (NT aside). We're all happy to run this stuff on some pretty
high profile sites. If it wasn't fit for use I wouldn't touch the thing.

NT aside again, I bet 99% of sites don't care about any unresolved
problems on the current 1.3 status, they certainly won't see them as
being worth waiting another 2,3,4,5,6 months for - and that's very likely
to happen based on our recent history.

> During this whole discussion there was mention of "trust." I don't
> know where that crap came out of, but that's never in my mind been
> an issue.

What *I* mean by trust here is that I assume none of the people I've
seen commit stuff are likely to throw in something stupid/controversial.
It's not a 'trust' as in "here's my PIN number and car keys" kind of
thing.  The pool of developers has pretty much settled and concerns
I might have had 12 months ago about commit-then-review have faded.

I also trust/assume that any kind of major change will be discussed
before code is written or committed. None of us like being told an
idea sucks or has been proved hopeless AFTER writing it.

Rob Hartill                              Internet Movie Database (Ltd)   .. a site for sore eyes.

View raw message