Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 14:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: rbb@covalent.net
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: Review then commit.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005271411140.32359-100000@nebula.lyra.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0005261417210.1305-100000@koj.rkbloom.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sat, 27 May 2000, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Fri, 26 May 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > I would like some feedback here to moving to a review then commit mode for
> > 2.0.  We are getting VERY close to the end of the alpha cycle, and it is
> > time to stop treating this like a sandbox finally.
> 
> -1
> 
> I don't agree with this viewpoint. Yes, you are unhappy with some of the
> changes, but I don't think a review-then-commit is the proper solution.
> We're in an alpha stage of code. Review->Commit is a MUCH slower process.
> We'll never get to a final release if we operate that way.

I am trying to get us out of alpha stage.  One of the reasons we are in
alpha stage is that things are just getting committed.  It is time to get
this code out of alpha and into beta and then production.  For that to
happen, it is my opinion that we need to slow down and start reviewing
changes more carefully.

> > One of the big things that is bothering me, is the sheer amount of code
> > that went into the tree last night, with an alpha ready to be rolled
> > tomorrow or Monday.  Yes, if the alpha is broken, we can just roll a new
> > one, but IMO our alpha's need to start becoming VERY stable beasts.  This
> > means taking some responsability to make sure that we aren't breaking
> > things days before we put one out.
> 
> Separate problem. OtherBill should not have made such drastic changes
> without offering up patches first. That is a process/education/habit
> problem, rather than a problem inherent in commit-then-review mode.
> 
> And alphas don't have to be stable :-)

Greg, you are operating under the false viewpoint the releasing an Apache
Alpha is easy.  It isn't.  It takes a good half a day.  Alpha's do need to
start being stable, because otherwise we NEVER get to beta stage.  This is
a fact of life, if the alpha's aren't stable, we never get out of
alpha.  Sorry.  Apache 2.0 Alpha's NEED to become stable now.

> > For right now, I would like to call off the next alpha, and straighten out
> > the code that went in last night (I believe two or three showstoppers were
> > introduced, but I am still checking, and then I will update STATUS), and
> > after that is done, roll our next alpha.
> 
> Seems fine.

That's two, do I hear a third?

Ryan

_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------