httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sander Striker" <stri...@apache.org>
Subject RE: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?
Date Mon, 14 Oct 2002 07:57:47 GMT
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@apache.org]
> Sent: 14 October 2002 01:05

> At 05:33 PM 10/13/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 5:15 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@apache.org>
wrote:
>>
>>> You haven't read a single email on this thread.  The ENTIRE POINT
>>> of this thread is that we have a radical change.  Auth.  Two Bills
>>> and who knows whom all else may concur that we can't reasonably
>>> force this change  into 2.0 for docs and upgrade reasons.
>>
>> Ten binding votes were cast for this change with the understanding that
>> it might break backwards compatibility.  Only one binding vote was cast
>> for the aaa rewrite being in 2.1.
> 
> First, anyone can vote.  Only committers have vetos.
> 
> 2.0: rbb, brianp, dreid, gstein, jim, rederpj, striker, trawick,
>      ianh, gs, bnicholes
> 2.1: dpejesh, chris, aaron, hb
> 
> Note that neither Bill voted, apparently that would be six votes for 2.1.
> But you are ignoring that striker has already implicitly voted against
> 2.0 by releasing 2.0.42 sans auth changes.

Errr, if I in my role as RM decide that a change doesn't go in I usually
have a good reason for that.  This, however, doesn't translate to an
implicit vote against the change in 2.0.

I didn't include the auth changes because I tagged STRIKER_2_0_41_PRE1
_before_ the auth changes were committed.

In the release cycle I didn't decide to include the shiny new code
because:

 - the docs weren't complete;
 - the code was so new that I wasn't comfortable with it yet.

FYI, it was possible that the tree was left in a 'broken' state for a while
due to the aaa changes, and that's why we decided to move forward and
release 2.0.41 (which turned into 2.0.42).  Simply not to have our
users wait longer on the bugfixes that were already present.

My vote to keep the aaa changes in 2.0 still stands.

> And I released 2.0.43 sans auth changes.
>
> I said, I'm not vetoing without three strong -1's on this code.  I'm not
> certain Bill's concerns are addressed.  I'm not certain Aaron's are
> addressed.  After I get strong -1's, I'll personally veto.  Then we can
> resume the 2.1 branch discussion as a separate point.

Will you consider the concerns of others regarding branching aswell?  I've
seen a lot more people voicing concerns in that area than in keeping the
aaa changes in 2.0.

Sander

Mime
View raw message