Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 33768 invoked by uid 500); 28 May 2000 21:44:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 33757 invoked from network); 28 May 2000 21:44:31 -0000 Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 14:44:31 -0700 (PDT) From: dean gaudet To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: Review then commit. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-comment: visit http://arctic.org/~dean/legal for information regarding copyright and disclaimer. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N review then commit is *always* an impediment to bug fixing. -dean 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > Ryan > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org > 406 29th St. > San Francisco, CA 94131 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >