httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL-VOTE] Adopt lazy consensus for backports...
Date Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:18:49 GMT
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 10:43:15PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I entirely agree - stability of the already-done version 2.0 is
> paramount to me.  However we need to make some edge case expections
> for that code which only one or two voulenteers are familiar with.
> e.g. Win32 service code is only known by 4 members, Novell by only
> one, and ldap only three of us ever pay attention.
> 'Platform maintainers' should have some way to get measurable and
> tested code improvements back into 2.0.

I'd be fine with us defining some exceptions to the 'RTC' area (and making it
CTR and hence lazy consensus): stuff like platform specific code, or
experimental modules.  But, remember, experimental modules as a concept
disappears in 2.2: the only way to introduce a new module is to roll it into
the next minor release branch.  However, I strenuously object to core code
changes being merged into stable without 3 +1s first.

The real solution to Brad's problem of not having enough code visibility for
your changes is to push out more frequent branches *not* making stable turn
into unstable.  Pushing out a new 2.(x+2).0 release every few months (or even
6 months!) would go a long way to solving the 'black hole' dilemma.  Yet, I
don't believe that lapsing back into CTR is the right solution.  -- justin

View raw message