Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021017111439.0348ca18@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:42:57 -0500
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: [Vote] 2.1 fork near ready?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Here's my current proposal...

1) Effective now, designate 2.0 as 'maintainence mode'.  Apache 2.0
   will always be based on APR 0.9 forever from here on forward, until
   we care to port the next release to APR 1.0

2) Create an APACHE_2_0_BRANCH from 2.0.43 if this vote passes.

Then, once we feel 'ready',

a) Tag APACHE_2_1_rcworktag from HEAD.

b) Remove mpm/experimental and modules/experimental from 
   APACHE_2_1_rcworktag.

d) All developers, review their changes to cvs HEAD, and simply
   move the tag APACHE_2_1_rcworktag to an appropriate revision
   (or backout, then tag, then reapply the unsuited changes.)

e) New changes that are appropriate for a stable release may be
    tagged with APACHE_2_1_rcworktag.

f) Any time during this process, someone may tag APACHE_2_2_n,
   votes, and we release the first development release of the 2.1/2.2
   family.  This may help with the final steps below, putting especially
   into 3rd party author's hands.

g) Just as soon as someone wants to go out on a limb, they tag
   APACHE_2_1_0_RC1 from APACHE_2_1_rcworktag.  Votes.

h) Just as soon as the vote is +1 for the latest APACHE_2_1_0_RC#,
   someone goes out on a limb and tags that candidate APACHE_2_1_0
   and the fun begins.
   
i) Create an APACHE_2_1_BRANCH from APACHE_2_1_0.

I really do expect 2.1 to look very much like CVS head today, sans any
radical new unfinished ideas.  But the more we can get broken and fixed
the 'right way' now, the longer we will avoid the 2.1/2.2 -> 2.3/2.4 bump.

So rethink the module names and directives of the 'New Auth'.  Did we
consider it all?  Does ugliness remain that we will spend all of 2.1 griping
about?  Now is the time to open mouth, insert foot and make it 'right'.
It won't change again for a good six months :-)

Finally, I don't think we want to release 2.1/2.2 until APR 1.0 locks them
into their versioning rules, do we?  Hopefully that is _VERY_ near since
the debate on APR pretty much left the status as "let's deal with this
small handful of versioning issues and call it 1.0 already!"

What if we put the energy into calling APR 1.0 and Apache HTTP 
Server 2.1 released at AC2002?  Only a few weeks remain to make
that happen.  But it certainly could.  We have good code, but there is
some breakage (API names et al) to do before we have that coup.

Thoughts?

Bill