httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [vote] release httpd-2.2.14?
Date Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:33:57 GMT
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Graham Leggett <minfrin@sharp.fm> wrote:

> trawick wrote:
>
> > Expectations of n users trump some the behavior of a helper script used
> > by a few people, for our rather huge values of n.
>
> Development on httpd is done in the open, and all our processes,
> including our release processes, are transparent, and anybody is free to
> improve upon our processes at any time.
>
> Up till now, Linux users have enjoyed the happy accident that recent
> versions of httpd and apr have been rolled for release by the release
> manager on Linux. But this is purely a happy accident. Users of other
> platforms have quietly made do with the tools available to them, without
> complaint.
>
> Now that a release is being done on a platform other than Linux,
> suddenly some people are complaining[1].
>
> Not fixing the problem, not submitting patches, just complaining.
>
> What signal does that send to others who might undertake the daunting
> task of making a release? The signal is a clear "don't bother, you'll
> trip over some unwritten rule, and someone somewhere will bite your head
> off, so just wait till wrowe has time to do it, and keep your head down".
>
> Like I said before, unwritten rules are evil. If you want it to be a
> rule, code it.
>
> [1] Some users have submitted helpful suggestions, which is exactly what
> they should be doing, please may this continue.
>

It sounded to me from your last e-mail, well into the thread of discussions
on how to resolve the issue, that even if people on the list found a
solution for the roll script so that the tarball could be verified in the
same manner as previous releases, you didn't consider it important and/or
feel the need to re-roll, because that is how roll.sh is coded.

I disagreed with the principle, and submitted an alternate one.  My
"disagreement" is apparently "complaining."

It also seems like you're implying that I or anyone else shouldn't get to
discuss such aspects of the release without contributing towards a solution.

It probably isn't surprising that I disagree with that too.

Mime
View raw message