httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Bannert <>
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.


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

View raw message