httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Switch httpd-2.0 to RTC?
Date Tue, 09 Apr 2002 02:04:08 GMT
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 05:38:40PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Should at some point we switch httpd-2.0 to a Review-then-Commit
> model?  If so, when?  If not, why not?

Short answer: no, not for a while, see below.

The dev guidelines state:

    "All product changes to the currently active repository are subject to
     lazy consensus. All product changes to a prior-branch (old version)
     repository require consensus before the change is committed."

Thus, the httpd-2.0 repository remains CTR until we open up a new

The basic story is that developers need a place where they can iterate on
their ideas at their own pace. That is the "active repository".

> I guess I'm scared that someone will start adding things that
> will destabilize the server without having it appropriately
> reviewed *before* committing.

Too bad :-)

You have several options here:

* trust that people are going to be relatively smart about this (my favorite)
* review the change after it was committed; you can always modify the change
  and/or veto it.
* start a new repository / branch / whatever

Note that the 1.3 repository is still operating commit-then-review. By
convention, bug fixes go into that thing as a commit, with a review later.
Feature changes *should* have a patch first, but people have been REALLY BAD
about that (I won't mention names, but will mention that Ken has been *good*
about posting feature change patches first).

Personally, I view httpd-2.0 as a completely open and active repository. I
even consider API changes as somewhat acceptable. :-)

Re: API changes. That is what we have ap_mmn.h for. However, what we've done
in the past (and I agree with), is that we balance an MMN bump against
whatever is causing the problem. We don't want to invalidate third-party
modules just to add some stupid edge case feature.

I would recommend that we continue with httpd-2.0 for a few months. At that
time, we can set up an httpd-2.1 or httpd-3.0 repository (or both!) in
Subversion. Moving to Subversion also neatly avoids the question of whether
to start a new CVS module or to use CVS branches :-)


Greg Stein,

View raw message