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 20:40:35 GMT
Whoops...not enough sleep :) That should read as R-T-C not C-T-R...

I also tend to think this should be applied to the 1.3 tree.

david

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Reid" <dreid@jetnet.co.uk>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS ROADMAP


> 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