httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roy T. Fielding <>
Subject Re: RTC killed the open source project
Date Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:02:53 GMT
On Aug 9, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Aaron Bannert wrote:

> I'm not talking about 2.2. I'm talking about a severe slowdown in the
> pace of development on this entire project.

Less talk, more do.

> And it sounds like you've been feeling the effects of all the red tape
> too, with being fed up trying to follow through with a release.
> There are two separate issues:
> * The difficulty in *producing* releases is due to RMs being too afraid
>   to make releases that aren't perfect. This phobia is a disease, 
> because
>   it prevents the release-early-release-often motto from happening.

Yes, but that doesn't prevent you from being the RM.

> * The difficulty in *making progress toward a releasable repository* is
>   being caused by the STATUS file bottleneck. The STATUS file 
> bottleneck
>   is caused because we have Review-Then-Commit rules set up, which
>   means everyone has to serialize EVERY CHANGE on that file. (You're
>   talking to the thread programming guy here, remember? That's a point
>   of contention. :)

I still don't know WTF you are talking about.  RTC only applies
to the 1.3 and 2.0 branches right now, neither of which have seen
active development for years because we don't want them to be
actively developed.  The only reason we have a STATUS file is
so that the current RM can keep track of what has been proposed
and reviewed without searching the mail archives.  We could switch
over to Jira and do the same automatically (assuming it didn't
keel over and die from the load), but the STATUS file is supposed
to be the RM's to-do list, not everyone's bag of concerns. STATUS
doesn't prevent anyone from cutting a new release tarball.

> RTC came with good intentions (higher quality code), but it's clear now
> that it's not working and it needs to change.

RTC is working fine.  What isn't working is the lack of releases
on the CTR branches, which is the only reason people still complain
about slow 2.0 releases (because there are no other 2.x releases).

I can't be RM right now because I am going on vacation next week.
If I were RM, then I would simply arrange the tags such that some
set of revisions worked and cut a tarball.  If apr-util doesn't
work, revert it to a fixed version.  If Netware doesn't work, remove
it from the list of platforms. If win32 can't be built by the RM,
then discard it as irrelevant.  Cut the tarball and vote.  If that
doesn't pass, fix the errors, cut another tarball, and vote.  Keep
going until a release is made.


View raw message