httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: 2.1 Fallout; httpd v.s. httpd-2.0
Date Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:25:29 GMT
At 08:30 AM 11/25/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>David Reid wrote:

[Will recalls Marc Slemco stating:]

>> > If you are looking at 2.1 being as different from 2.0 as 1.3 and 2.0 are,
>> > then perhaps a branch isn't the best idea.  But if you are looking at
>> > having that many differences before 2.0 has even had a chance to stablize,
>> > I think you are asking for trouble and how to manage the CVS repository
>> > would be the least of the worries...
>> Hmm, a nice summary of my own feelings and concerns. :)
>And mine as well (and a concern I had since the topic was 1st mentioned/
>suggested many moons ago). The 2.1 branch makes sens iff the intent
>is to place 2.0 in API and feature "freeze" and work on stabilizing
>and tuning the code, not that "we're bored with 2.0 and want to work
>on the next cool verson and all this crud about keeping 2.0
>stable and robust is really slowing down my creative juices" ;)
>Not that anyone is saying, or has said that.

Nope.  Folks have asked that 2.0 stop being a sandbox for those next cool
features and that we get 2.0 code working.  However, folks want to proceed
with the next cool features.  Why ask them to quit it?

Since most of the active committers, (first in terms of applying their own
and others' bug fixes, and secondly still participants in the project) 
expressed content with having a separate stable tree and a sandbox for
continued work, and a vote was conducted for a month with not so much
as a -0, I won't be too frustrated when folks start rehashing the decision
for the next year.  You may as well also start venting over how poor the 
old 1.3 is doing (but don't go fixing it, that would take away all the fun 
of griping about it :-)

Which takes us to the question raised by the three of you.  It's Apache.
You scratch Your own itch.  If that's maintenance (as Jeff, myself, and
many others including yourselves keep persisting in) then that's cool.
If that itch is new development, such as auth refactoring, async overhaul
or factoring out the filesystem, then that's cool too.

Participate how you like; that's the point of *this* Apache project.  Even
the backseat drivers are welcome here :-)


View raw message