httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Querna <>
Subject Re: Time for a 2.3/2.4 branch?
Date Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:47:24 GMT
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:21 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
>>> what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
>>> so we could focus on the required checks while still allowing
>>> trunk to continue unabated?
>> -1, until we have votes for a beta/almost GA from trunk, -or- until
>> someone
>> offers a breaking patch which is targeted to something later than 2.4/3.0.
>> That's IMHO - vetos are irrelevant to this topic.  If you can point to a
>> recent commit as an example of what we shouldn't pick up in 2.4/3.0, you
>> could probably shift my opinion about this.  My reasoning;
>> Trunk was split to allow people to make rapid progress without the
>> overhead
>> of choosing the backport path and slowing down progress.  In fact,
>> progress
>> on httpd is mostly at a standstill by anyone other than some committed
>> folks
>> happy to work through the STATUS files.  The process had chased them off,
>> much as Aaron Bannert and others had argued.  On the other hand 2.2 is
>> very
>> dependable and stable as compared to other open source efforts.
>> So forking too early isn't healthy, and forking too late (your fear) also
>> isn't healthy to finally accomplish a release.  Let's get to alpha and
>> then
>> discuss.  (Obviously, if trunk is taken in a strange direction, it's
>> always
>> possible to pull the branch later from the same rev as a particular tag.)
>> Does this make sense?
> Yep. My only fear, as you state, is without some clear consensus that
> we want to get a 2.4 out "sometime soon", we will be stuck in that
> never-ending loop of polishing the turd. ;)

start cutting alpha releases :-)

last timed we tried trunk on it didn't go so well...
so... we should do that again.

View raw message