httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Stoddard" <b...@wstoddard.com>
Subject RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS ROADMAP
Date Sun, 24 Nov 2002 02:18:03 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.

I liked the way we worked in Apache 1.3 before 2.0 came along.  It was CTR but
folks were generally MUCH more careful about the code they committed. If the
code was even somewhat likely to break or change some expected bahaviour, the
patch was submitted to the mailing list for peer review first. I would be in
favor of staying CTR -if- we (the committers) individually adopt somewhat more
conservative policy in what we commit to the tree w/o first getting dev list
feedback.

Bill


Mime
View raw message