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
Date Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:16:45 GMT
At 02:54 PM 11/25/2002, you wrote:
>jim         2002/11/25 12:54:59
>
>  Modified:    .        Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
>  Log:
>  It appears that I am "unworthy" to have an opinion...

How do you mean?  Don't read between the lines in my comments;
backseat drivers *are* welcome, and you are one of the few who
actively pursue 1.3 bugs [which is goodness!]

Were my comments *that* offensive?  Gheesh, gotta read my own
comments three ways to Sunday.  The gist of my message was that
there are many different ways to participate and that nobody should
dictate how someone participates (bug-hunter, doc-er, new -dev hacker,
or however they want to participate!)  I'm reading the resistance that 
folks against this whole 2.1 stuff want to pigeonhole developers into 
bug-fix mode and are resistant to progressing with a new version on
the chance that 2.0 will be 'orphaned'.

The bottom line of my message was that 1.3 fixers should be welcome, 
2.0 fixers should be welcome, 2.1 new-code-hackers should be welcome.
Each scratching their own itches.  But that this group gets lost in folks
beating each other up because that person isn't marching to the same
drummer of another.  That's normal.  Rather than criticize one another
or complain that folks don't want to all do the same thing, we aught to
be able to pursue the side of httpd maintenance or development that
we like.  That includes new brainstorming that can't quite fit into whatever
we are shipping today (e.g. Apache 2.0).

Imagine for a moment if the list had told Ryan to sit out a year or two
instead of pursuing his ideas for APR and filters?  Would httpd be half
of what it is today?  Worse, for that time folks were discouraged from
committing fixes or improvements to 1.3; why?

Let hackers hack, let maintainers maintain.  Let everyone provide
input into the best way to go about things, and let the majority rule
on structural and project things [while continuing our tradition of votes
including hard vetoes against technical disputes.]  No designations
of what your 'role' is, everyone is self-designating around here, and
most of us like wearing several hats.

Apparently these points were lost because I stated it so badly, and
I've offended several of you.  Sorry.  I'll shut up already.

Bill


Mime
View raw message