httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glenn <gs-apache-...@gluelogic.com>
Subject Re: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?
Date Sat, 12 Oct 2002 22:03:48 GMT
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:11:29PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> This is going to sound like a grumpy old man talking, but it's sounding
> more and more like that 2.0 tree is considered, by many of the
> developers, little more than a playground to hack around in. There
> seems very little regard for end users or developers ("API changes
> with every release... yeah, so what."). Are people hacking 2.0
> (or 2.1) because it's fun to do and a neat project, or is there
> a desire that *people actually use the code*?
> 
> I'm certainly not saying that we ship broken or stupid code simply
> to get it out, but certainly people should be aware that, when all
> is said and done, isn't the whole idea of ASF projects is that
> people are encouraged to use them? Yeah, we should allow the API
> to grow and mature, but having it "constantly" change means, at
> a very core level, we have no idea what it should be doing or
> how it should be doing it.  [...]

Combine this with what Brian Pane wrote in an earlier message:

> There's one thing about this proposal that I really like:
> It creates a schedule goal for 2.1.
>
> In the past, I've been opposed to jumping to 2.1 because
> it was so vaguely defined that one couldn't be sure if
> delaying a feature to 2.1 meant "it will be out next
> quarter" or "it will be out in a few years."  If we can
> build consensus around a 2.1 with a limited feature set
> and schedule, them I'm much more interested...

Here's how I feel:  To avoid splitting developer resources (and patience)
between trees, the 2.0 tree should be feature-complete before starting
the 2.1 tree.  (And AFAIK, no one has defined "feature-complete" for 2.0.)
Once the 2.1 tree is started, primary development (head) should be in that
tree, with features backported to 2.0/1.3 as appropriate.

While I'm not a fan of compatilibility breakage between _every_ minor
release; occasional breakage is OK when discussed and voted upon, as
happened in the case of the auth changes.

Since I haven't heard anyone say "2.0 is *DONE*", in the sense of baked,
decorated, and served <beats metaphor into new starter dough>, why start 2.1?

As Justin Erenkrantz said:
> Lead with the code - once the code is written or we have a plan of 
> attack, we can find a home for it. 

In other words, once the code is there, then it can be determined if the
change is radical enough to warrant 2.1.

Does this conversation sound familiar or is it just me? :-)

-Glenn

Mime
View raw message