httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: apache-2.0 now clean
Date Tue, 03 Feb 1998 00:11:28 GMT
I didn't create the apache-2.0 tree... so _someone_ else had to "want"
it enough to at least create it. And someone adjusted STATUS to
remove the 1.3 stuff so "someone" wanted it enough to decide to
have it make sense :)

> No.  The whole idea of the 2.0 tree is to have a shared information
> space that is specific to 2.0 development and in which people can work 
> on the 2.0 redesign.  The notion that we should throw a bunch of
> unstable code into the directory and then just hack at it until it
> resembles something like what someone might want in a 2.0 is utterly
> absurd.  It doesn't make sense to start hacking until we have at least
> some clue as to what the destination is supposed to look like, and to
> do that we need people to commit their own plans for what they want
> in 2.0.  Once they've done that, they can just copy the code they
> are working on into the appropriate directories and go to it.
> In any case, the 1.3 and 2.0 repositories will be disjoint!

Right now, there are 2 schools of thought (1) that 2.0 will be a complete
rewrite and thus 2.0 should be completely empty and that (2) 2.0 will
use 1.3 as a base. This hasn't been decided upon at all. With an
empty 2.0 tree, those in school #2 have no avenue in which to do any
coding whereas those in #1 are fine. If 2.0 was available, then those
in school #2 could do work and, again, those in #1 would be unaffected.

Let's say Dean has a great, super neat idea. Neat new feature. He is
spending time on it and wants to see it enacted and his time not
wasted. With a 2.0 tree, he could add it to there, leaving the 1.3
tree "closed" enough to allow us to release it. Without a 2.0 tree,
he needs to either add it to 1.3, thus delaying it's release; add
some "notes" on the new feature and "this is how I did it as a
patch to the 1.3 tree" to the 2.0 repository; or just forget it.
Not a good alternative imo.

By having a 2.0 tree available NOW, code can be added, changed, etc...

      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services           |
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"

View raw message