Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 78972 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2009 21:29:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Oct 2009 21:29:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 74538 invoked by uid 500); 4 Oct 2009 21:29:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 74455 invoked by uid 500); 4 Oct 2009 21:29:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 74446 invoked by uid 99); 4 Oct 2009 21:29:16 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:29:16 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [72.167.82.81] (HELO p3plsmtpa01-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net) (72.167.82.81) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:29:06 +0000 Received: (qmail 28490 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2009 21:28:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (76.252.112.72) by p3plsmtpa01-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.81) with ESMTP; 04 Oct 2009 21:28:38 -0000 Message-ID: <4AC91381.8030007@rowe-clan.net> Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:28:33 -0500 From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Time for a 2.3/2.4 branch? References: <4AC8E790.8000400@rowe-clan.net> <4239a4320910041247j15bb0357leec46245c0131272@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4239a4320910041247j15bb0357leec46245c0131272@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Paul Querna wrote: > On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> >> 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 www.apache.org it didn't go so well... > so... we should do that again. +1 - note that to get from alpha to GA, the biggest problem right now is the state of docs (as Stefan hinted at). LOTS of modules are entirely undocumented. We might want to look at these and consider dumping these from the next 2.4 release if no documentation magically appears, courtesy of their authors. But documentation need not block an alpha :) My worries about going GA today mostly revolve around; * introduction of many new hard-dependencies rather than registered functions (one solution; for the guilty to go back and correct their designs or revert) * problematic design of ap_internal_fast_redirect (solution; replace all calls within httpd to ap_internal_redirect, then remove it entirely) * problematic design of - looks like it's time to commit since it's probably premature to lock in all users to use mod_lua (remaining issue; determining where the merge is evaluated) * problematic introduction of redundant (and often error-prone) code. For example, socache moves us partly in the right direction, but didn't remove the redundant directive handlers from the many consumers (fortunately I'm writing an socache consumer right now, so I'm likely to just address this) * undocumented modules and new features (solution; document, or remove from final release branch) None of these are months-long efforts, it's just a matter of enough contributors who would be looking to polish up trunk/, in proportion to those dedicating dozens of man-months to reviewing backports to yesterday's server :)