Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:58:00 -0800
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548)
From: Aaron Bannert <aaron@clove.org>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <009301c294e4$40f7a120$7500a8c0@goliath>
Message-Id: <1C2693B8-00DA-11D7-9A20-000393B3C494@clove.org>

I guess I just didn't read that much in to it. I just want
to see us move forward without getting bogged down in
misinterpreted emails and already acknowledged mistakes,
and to do that I'm trying to stay objective (eg. a Vote).

To me this looks like the set of concerns:

1) we want 2.0 maintenance
2) we want 2.1 development
3) we want parallel development of each
4) a bad name for a combined 2.0+2.1 CVS module is "httpd-2.0"
5) having separate CVS modules means we lose future history
6) creating a brand new CVS module means we lose past history

(does this cover everyone's concerns?)

Therefore I'm proposing that we just keep the "httpd-2.0" CVS
module we have for a little longer, eventually on some
well-in-advance forewarned flag day we rename it to something
more generic, like just "httpd" and then keep a readonly
artifact of the old "httpd-2.0" CVS module around for posterity.

-aaron


On Monday, November 25, 2002, at 04:39  PM, David Reid wrote:

> Language can be a terrible thing...
>
> If Jim feels like this then we should all be pausing for thought.
>
> Aaron, calling for a vote will not accomplish anything with feelings 
> having
> been so inflamed.
>
> In fact there seems to have been a rash of this sort of "outburst" and
> ensuing chaos recently. One of the catchphrases at the 'Con among a 
> group of
> us became "Can't we all just get along..." - maybe it's also valid 
> here?
>
> david
>
>> jim@apache.org 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...
>>>
>>
>>
>> On what grounds? I would assume that if you aren't "worthy"
>>
>> then neither am I, so I would need to participate in a similar
>> exorcism of opinions... I assumed all committers were "worthy".
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul J. Reder
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> "The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination 
>> of
> each
>> citizen to defend it.  Only if every single citizen feels duty bound 
>> to do
>> his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure."
>> -- Albert Einstein
>>
>>
>>