Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-32618-apmail-httpd-dev-archive=httpd.apache.org@httpd.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org
Received: (qmail 90404 invoked by uid 500); 28 Aug 2002 19:58:54 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
list-help: <mailto:dev-help@httpd.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:dev@httpd.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org
Received: (qmail 90390 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2002 19:58:54 -0000
Message-Id: <0D3D7069DB7AD511B8130002A55C557E08084BEB@gsny35e.ny.fw.gs.com>
From: "Padwa, Daniel" <daniel.padwa@gs.com>
To: "'dev@httpd.apache.org'" <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Going to 2.1? was Re: authentication rewrite
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:56:47 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

<sorry - typo hit the send key>

It's often hard for outsiders to keep track of which updates are minor
features/tweaks/fixes-for-one-platform and which are major
features/refactorings.   A bump in second-order number will help.

I don't get a vote, but it seems that it would be reasonable to discourage
major refactorings in 2.0, and start pushing them to 2.1.

- Danny

-----Original Message-----
From: Padwa, Daniel 
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 3:55 PM
To: 'dev@httpd.apache.org'
Subject: RE: Going to 2.1? was Re: authentication rewrite


> I'd really like to see us start attacking smaller-grain problems and 
> releasing those
> features more often, rather than lining up years and years of "ooh me too
and this
> too" until we've got bugs coming out of our ears and nothing stable out
the door for
> our users and testers. IMHO, a new auth framework is a *perfect* target
for the next
> milestone, and it makes sense to call it 2.1.

Sounds like a very healthy idea.

At some point (perhaps now, perhaps soon - I don't have a vote) it will be
time to declare 2.0 closed to major refactoring.

Without digging deep into the process, it's often hard to know


Seriously, though, something like this that could (will necessarily?) break
third-party auth modules would do well to have a version number bump