httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Fritsch>
Subject Re: [discuss] The 'RM' Baton [was VOTE]
Date Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:54:00 GMT
On Wednesday 10 July 2013, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:18:06 +1000
> Noel Butler <> wrote:
> > on holiday with a dog slow 3G vpn tonight, so I'll be brief (and
> > wont see any replies until I return on Sunday...)
> > 
> > I have never agreed with any "release often" principle, a project
> > that releases often (more than a few times a year) to me says
> > "immature instability" compared to a project that releases once
> > or twice a year (barring critical bug resolutions) - IOW,
> > release when necessary not just because its a "cool thing to
> > do". Take dovecot for instance, we stayed on the stable 1.2
> > series for more than a year after it was EOL, because its 2.0.x
> > kept having fixes and releases every couple of weeks for a
> > while, admins dont like that, it gives them no warm feelings
> > towards stability.
> On the other hand, waiting 6 mos for a 'complete' release also
> implies that users are waiting for other fixes for 5 months. 
> Reviewing CHANGES helps admins to determine if those fixes in a
> more frequent release cadence do address specific needs of each
> specific admin.
> > WRT slow take up of 2.4.x, I agree, the incentive (as was
> > discussed 2 years or so ago) was to EOL 2.0, and what needs
> > doing now, is starting the countdown to EOL of 2.2 -  if there's
> > no incentive to move, twenty years of history proves most admins
> > wont.
> Please keep an eye out, as Steffan has, for anywhere we are still
> presenting the 2.2 branch as 'stable' or implying that it is
> current.
> In practice, 2.2 is the stable release, from what users experience.

This stems in part from the > 5 years between 2.2 and 2.4. 2.4 simply 
takes some time to stabilize. 2.2 did so, too (at the company I was 
working for at the time, we started adoption with 2.2.8 or so).

> The post from the modperl project relayed by Jim this past week is
> very welcome news, for getting 2.4 adopted by downstream packagers!

And the other part of the problems is distributions not picking 2.4 up 
early because of mod_perl missing and/or because of 2.4 being released 
at an unfortunate point of time in the distribution's own release 

> But the thread is largely about how long an offer to RM should be
> considered 'valid', vs. having another prospective RM pick up the
> baton and run with a new release.  We all get busy, and as active
> volunteers we tend to over-commit and under-deliver.  If STATUS
> were devoid of 'Bill claims the baton' messages, will others step
> up to RM more frequently?  You are asking the question, 'should we
> RM more frequently or avoid frequent releases?'  Based on the
> history and early adoption of both 2.0 and 2.2, I'd suggest that
> frequent releases do contribute to adoption.

I would also prefer more frequent releases, at least 4 per year. But I 
agree with other answers that the problem is lack of time of 
committers and not that one person has claimed the baton.


View raw message