httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Date Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:35:49 GMT
Oden Eriksson wrote:
> Den Friday 14 December 2007 20.24.35 skrev Jim Jagielski:
>>  From what I can see, both 1.3 and 2.2 are backport
>> free, so it's just 2.0 right now.

Yup - and the review of significant 2.0 patches would only take
an hour or two, it's not that complex - things that were already
accepted and happily adopted for 2.2.

> It's some obsession to release more than just one? I would rather see 2.2.7 
> released now. I don't care at all about 1.3.x or 2.0.x. 

It's simply time consuming for the RM to package /anything/.  Nevermind
put it up for a vote, update the websites, send out the announcements
and so forth.  So it's really an RM's call what they want to proceed
with, we all appreciate that.

There are economies of scale; once you have to dig into 10 different
places to update it all, changing 3 instead of just 1 is pretty
trivial.  Changing it all one at a time for one release over and over
again is a PITA.  I've RM'ed my share of httpd releases, and know this
from experience.

However, if just one of those three falls over, and can't be released,
that should not stop any other good candidates from becoming released
promptly, so RM'ing two extra tarballs really doesn't add as much work
as you might expect.

So I offered to package 2.0, because I don't want to force it on anyone
else who doesn't care.  I was guessing Jim might want to RM all three,
but that's his call, I'm happy either way.

Either Jim, or I, or any other RM who goes to the effort deserves our
appreciation.  There's a simple way of not-so-rudely saying what you
just said above.  Just don't test the package you don't care about,
don't put in a vote either way, and certainly don't play peanut gallery
if you have nothing productive to add.


View raw message