httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <>
Subject Re: stable 2.0 trees
Date Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:10:08 GMT
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <> writes:

> It seems that the 'maintainers', the stodgy 'old men' of the group, want
> everyone to row together on bug fixes.  That isn't how OS works.  The
> folks with no interest in tracking down obscure bugs just leave, or
> quietly bide their time.  The number of commits to the project is way
> down, meaning the rate of improvement for the project has slowed.

just curious...  which proposal corresponds to "want everyone to row
together on bug fixes"?

> Jeff especially hit one nail on the head;
> >. let those who are interested (not more than a few would be needed to
> >  make it viable) maintain a separate tree based on 2.0.43, including
> >  apr and apr-util...  call it httpd-2.0.43, with potential releases
> >,, etc.
> Dropping the sub-subversion discussion for the moment, he hit on 
> the magic words "let those who are interested".  Those who want to 
> maintain stable will, it's their itch.  Those who want to make forward 
> progress on the alpha/beta tree will have that outlet.

I would expect that anybody working on maintaining the extremely
stable release would be involved with the alpha/beta tree too, since
the very definition of the extremely stable release (only critical
fixes always close to release-able since there aren't many changes to
test) means that there isn't much work associated with it.

Bill S and I had some discussions over lunch which make me suspect
that I'm not communicating very well the spirit of what I proposed.

First, I'm pretty happy with what is going on in 2.0 HEAD now.  I
don't think MMN is changed gratuitously, I don't think the code gets
destabilized a whole lot on a regular basis, I think that having some
aspects of the config change (i.e., the auth issue) change at this
point in the >=2.0 lifetime is not completely unreasonable (scripts
can certainly help admins).  I think we're still at a point where
changing MMN is reasonable under certain conditions.

My proposal was just to allow extremely conservative/stable releases
which any current 2.0 site could upgrade to with no fears (either of
new Apache problems from some of the itch scratching or breaking
compatibility with 3rd party modules) in order to pick up a fix for a
security problem they're concerned with.

This proposal wasn't intended to address the big picture of how
overall development proceeds and which changes can be delivered within
2.0 framework or some new set of ideas.  It  was only to calm the
concerns of sites running 2.0 which have things working pretty well
but are concerned that the 2.0 tree has enough activity that they risk
breaking something else by picking up a new 2.0 release.

Jeff Trawick |
Born in Roswell... married an alien...

View raw message