Message-ID: <34B53160.815EFF5E@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 20:04:48 +0000
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Organization: A.L. Digital Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: voting
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980108102207.4853A-100000@saga19.Stanford.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Alexei Kosut wrote:
> Actually, I'd like to point out something that no one seems to remember:
> We are in the middle of the 1.3 beta cycle. i.e., everything that we are
> doing right now is supposed to be moving us towards a 1.3.0 release, and
> so needs a full cycle of peer review, so we don't introduce additional
> bugs or other code that slows that process.
> 
> Once we get to 2.0-dev, I think that, as we have in the past, the
> commit-now, review-later policy is much more likely to be applicable.

This, I think is the crux of the matter (and I think Ben Hyde's comments
are highly relevant, BTW). The problem is that stuff is being done which
is not really appropriate to a beta cycle. Clearly we are really still
in development.

The beef is that voting is getting in the way of progress. But we aren't
supposed to be making progress in 1.3, just fixing it so it can be
released.

Perhaps we should have a 1.4? Then there'd be incentive to get 1.3 out
the door, so 1.4 can be started to have the next round of wonderful
features, without the so-far-off-I'm-not-even-sure-it'll-ever-happen 2.0
as the only reason to get 1.3 finished.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache