httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Stoddard" <>
Subject RE: stable 2.0 trees
Date Tue, 15 Oct 2002 13:59:12 GMT

> At 08:16 AM 10/15/2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> >> After a million messages on related topics, I'm not sure that any two
> >> developers agree on all of the following topics:
> >>
> >> . how much to consider the needs of users relative to desires of
> >>   developers
> >>
> >> . how hard to try not to break binary compatibility
> >>
> >> . how much to use 2.0 HEAD as a sandbox for new features
> >>
> >> . whether or not to start 2.1 now for auth changes
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, a number of the 2.0 users which have dared poke their heads
> >> into our mailing list point out through their comments that we have a
> >> PR problem (regardless of whether or not you agree technically on
> >> their particular concerns).
> >
> >Worth reading...
> >,14179,28822
> 03,00.html
> >
> >I am generally in favor of maintaining a binary compatible/stable 2.0 cvs
> >repository. I think this may help the third party module authors
> to finally
> >do the work to get their modules running on Apache 2.0, which should help
> >improve the 2.0 adoption rate.  What we call that repository is not
> >particularly important to me, though the name we choose may have PR
> >implications which we should be sensitive to.  My suggestion is we freeze
> >2.0 MMN major bumps (unless there is a really, -really-, REALLY
> compelling
> >reason to do a bump) and start a new development tree for 2.1.
> Lets set some
> >goals for what we (the developers and the user community) want
> to see in 2.1
> >and work toward those goals (ie, finish and agree on the ROADMAP we've
> >already started).
> I have to concur with Bill on this (in spite of the fact that
> Jeff's arguments
> try to appeal to everyone's sensibilities.)  I think the new
> proposal, that we
> have a maintenance tree stemming from Apache 2.0.43 using
> sub-subversions, follows from the fact that the list has been unresponsive
> to using revisions by the usual definitons.
> My question is just this... why do we feel that every revision must be
> 'completed'?  Clearly, 2.0.x is new territory.  Many will never upgrade
> to any 2.0.x simply because of the magic .0. in the middle.  And this
> magic .0. has been GA for over six months.

At the risk of racing too far ahead in this discussion, here is my
suggestion... 2.0.43 becomes 2.1 and the MMN major does not change for
subsequent 2.1 series releases (except for a compelling reason, eg a
security fix -requires- a bump).  Why 2.1?  No technical reason; purely a PR
tactic to telegraph to the user community we are putting a lot of focus on
maintaining binary backward compatability and to get rid of the *.0.* in the
version number (yea, to appease the folks who are allergic to 0's in version

New ROADMAP development is started in 3.0.


View raw message