httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS ROADMAP
Date Sat, 23 Nov 2002 20:43:10 GMT
Aaron Bannert wrote:
> 
> Let's discuss this a little more, I'm curious what others think. Is
> there really a problem now with people committing things that shouldn't
> be committed? Take the 1.3 branch for example.
> 
> Lets put this another way. Why would we want to stop anyone from 
> volunteering
> wherever they wanted?
> 

S'funny, I just posted a reply in response to Bill's commit (moral:
no matter how you sort your email, it's never right :) ). And I
see that others have done the same.

My own POV is that a R-T-C on 2.0 will almost ensure a very slow
development environ on that effort. We haven't felt the need
to do so with 1.3, so, unless the idea is that: (1) no one will
be looking at 2.0 compared to 2.1 and therefore c-t-r is a noop
or (2) we don't want a heathly development environ on 2.0. Neither
option fills me with happy and warm thoughts :)

If 2.1 is truly a sandbox, then 2.0 will be (must be) a heathly
effort to continue as it always has. Otherwise the fears that some
had regarding the "split" (that 2.0 will basically lay stagnant
is that stage that it is) may come true.

After all, some people like playing in sandboxes and other like
fine-tuning code that people are actually using and depending on.
And some like both. (And some poor slobs like neither)
-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
             will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson

Mime
View raw message