httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>
Subject Re: RTC killed the open source project
Date Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:24:50 GMT
No, 2.0 was a moving target because there was lots of active
development and things were getting rapidly fixed and rolled into
tarballs for our beta testers to pound on. There were easily 3 times
as many developers working on 2.0 than there are now.

Moving Target >> Stagnation

Bill's changes were numerous but each was individually reviewable.
The RTC alternative is to post that patches, find 2 other buddies to
hold hands with while crossing the street, look both ways, hold your
breath, then commit the big megapatch. Version control is your friend,
use it.

-aaron


On Aug 9, 2005, at 7:46 AM, Mads Toftum wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 09:11:56AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I think that RTC has a place, but too often RTC is used as a club
>> to slow down development. Small changes that could easily
>> be made once the code has been committed instead result in
>> cycles of "Wouldn't it be best to do this?" and another
>> round of patch-vote commences.
>>
>>
> All fine in theory, but wrowe who is the one suggesting CTR on  
> those two
> modules certainly wasn't suggesting small changes - there was what  
> - 20
> commits in the proxy/cache code the other day?
> The real trick is how you define the difference between small,
> relatively safe changes and complete rewrites of large chunks of code.
> 2.0 took very long to settle because it was very much a moving  
> target, I
> would hate for the same to keep happening with a 2.2 release.
>
> vh
>
> Mads Toftum
> -- 
> `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
>
>


Mime
View raw message