httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS ROADMAP
Date Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:51:40 GMT
At 01:25 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:

>On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:15  AM, wrowe@apache.org wrote:
>>   CURRENT RELEASE NOTES:
>>
>>  +    * This branch is operating under R-T-C guidelines.
>
>Huh? No way. We're all adults here. If someone commits something
>that you are uncomfortable with, bring it up on the list. There's
>no reason for any ASF project to be R-T-C, IMHO. Our voting
>rules are sufficient enough to protect against bogus commits to
>stable or "maintenance" trees.

One 'advantage' of R-T-C is eliminating the 'last minute breakage'
of trees as we approach releases.  I understand that most httpd'ers
haven't operated under R-T-C for a very long time, we enjoy treating
cvs as a sandbox for rapid development.

I think Jeff's original appeal for some known, stable branch (he actually
asked for 2.0.43.xxx in perpetutity) was that the release should not be
the sandbox for new ideas.

But I was only interpreting other's comments, committers, how do you
feel about this policy?  Should we operate C-T-R on 2_0_BRANCH?
Aaron, if you like, put this to a vote in 2_0_BRANCH'es STATUS.

  +    * The 'modules/experimental' tree will evaporate soon.  Anything
>>  +      in the development branch should be located under it's eventual
>>  +      home (such as modules/cache/.)
>
>There's no reason to remove this from the 2.0 releases. They are experimental
>not matter way, and if someone grabs a 2.0 tarball and wants to start
>hacking on experimental stuff, all the better!

I'm taking this from the vote.  Again, if you want to phrase this very specific
issue as a vote (in 2_0_BRANCH'es STATUS) I sure won't object.


Mime
View raw message