httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Bannert <>
Subject Re: [Vote] 2.1 fork near ready?
Date Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:22:58 GMT
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 03:58:00PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Sunday, October 20, 2002 3:20 PM -0700 Aaron Bannert 
> <> wrote:
> >I think this whole RTC vs. CTR debate is moot at this point. We all
> >trust each other not to mess up the repositories too much, and we
> >all hold code-level veto power over any commit (with technical
> >justification). Given that, I see no reason to put arbitrary
> >roadblocks in front of our trusted committers.
> Even with the best of intentions, people can unknowningly break the 
> tree.  It happens - we're human.  By enforcing a policy that mandates 
> prior peer review, we would ensure the integrity of the stable tree 
> to the best of our ability.

Exactly. CVS commit emails are good enough peer review for me.

> One of OtherBill's stated goals was to ensure a level of stability at 
> all times in the stable tree.  Unless we follow RTC rules, I don't 
> believe we can guarantee that stability.

I don't believe any complex piece of software in the world can ever make
such a definately guarantee, and surely by reading the Apache License one
would get the impression that the ASF does not make those kinds of claims
as a matter of policy. All we can say is that this release is probably
more stable (and has been in our own subjective opinion) than the last.

The difference between branches marked "stable" and "development" is
not the same as "it probably works" and "it probably doesn't work". The
difference is in how we as committers feel about what kinds of changes
are appropriate to make in each repository. I believe that only bug
fixes belong in the stable tree, while feature additions belong in the
development branch.

> I'm not suggesting RTC on the -development tree - the guarantee of 
> stability isn't there, but I believe it is on -stable.  We should 
> enforce a policy that reflects our desire of stability.  -- justin

I'm saying -1 to RTC ever in any openly democratic and strongly
peer-reviewed ASF project.


p.s. I don't consider this to be a vetoable choice, -1 just reflects my
opposition. :)

View raw message