httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS ROADMAP
Date Sun, 24 Nov 2002 20:36:20 GMT
Given the recent behavior of some I'm actually now in favour of C-T-R for
any stable tree...

Treat adults as adults until they prove they can't be so treated.

+1 for C_T_R for stable branches

david

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Trawick" <trawick@attglobal.net>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS ROADMAP


> "Bill Stoddard" <bill@wstoddard.com> writes:
>
> > > I think that R-T-C is the most likely way we'll get good reviews of
> > > code moved to the stable tree.
> >
> > Jeff is speaking from his experience with 2.0 development and I would
have to
> > agree with him in this regard.
>
> I believe that our experiences with 2.0 development (and recent 1.3
> maintenance) are indicative of what is going to happen with
> 2.0-stable, or at least much more so than any experiences from several
> years ago.
>
> Obviously the interpretation of that experience is subject to debate :)
>
> --/--
>
> Everybody has their own vision and we have to find the greatest
> commonality to decide how to work.  Here are some aspects of mine:
>
> . 1.3 maintenance needs to be a bit healthier...  more involvement of
>   people when somebody wants to fix something...  right now it can be
>   hard   to get anybody to give a shit when you want to fix
>   something...
>
> . 2.0-stable maintenance along the lines of 1.3, but I think that
>   fixing things in 2.0-stable is much more important than fixing
>   things in 1.3..  2.0-stable maintenance right now is for the
>   relatively few who try 2.x before the hoped-for avalanche, and
>   fixing their problems is going to prevent a world of hurt later on
>   (1.3 clearly works well-enough for almost anybody)
>
> . 2.1...  just like what has happened with 2.0 thus far...
>
> This has nothing to do with C-T-R vs. R-T-C; that is just a choice of
> which crude tool can best be used to achieve a goal.
>
> One of the useful properties of R-T-C is that if you don't have enough
> interest to keep a tree maintained in a healthy manner it becomes
> painfully obvious almost immediately.
>
> --
> Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
> Born in Roswell... married an alien...
>


Mime
View raw message