Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: error (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:12:27 -0500
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Cc: jim@jaguNET.com
Subject: Re: Whereforeartthou, 2.5.0?
Message-ID: <20130710121227.05fa9a2e@hub>
In-Reply-To: <637158A6-0F94-4DAA-9673-0EE17259CB07@jaguNET.com>
References: <20130710011910.202158ca@hub>
	<637158A6-0F94-4DAA-9673-0EE17259CB07@jaguNET.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:43:58 -0400
Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> 
> > So my proposal to be presented shortly as a vote would be to
> > abandon the trunk into a sandbox to be mined for good changes, once
> > 30 days after a vote is concluded without a release, and to revert
> > the 2.4.x trunk to CTR.  Comments and suggestions are welcome
> > before I frame this as an actual policy vote...
> 
> From what I can see, the above was sent at
> 
>    Received: from [173.201.193.104] (HELO
> p3plsmtpa08-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net) (173.201.193.104) by
> apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 06:19:53 +0000
> 
> and the [VOTE] The 'RM' Baton was sent at:
> 
>    Received: from [68.178.252.110] (HELO
> p3plsmtpa11-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net) (68.178.252.110) by
> apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 06:41:51 +0000
> 
> My math may be off, but that seems like a "wait" of ~22 minutes for
> the "welcome" comments and suggestions. :)

What does the question of how long can a prospective RM hold that baton
before it becomes an excessive period of time (being the act of one
committer, whether that is you or I or another, which prevents others
from offering to do so in a more timely manner)...

have to do with the question of what obstacles are in the way of commit 
activity today, particularly a /trunk/ which has no release plans, and
a cumbersome RTC process (being policy impacting each committer who
attempts to improve the 2.4.x active release branch)?

They are two separate matters to consider, and the second has a number
of possible solutions and improvements.  The former is a straightforward
question, are you or I impeding others from stepping up to RM in some
timely manner to offer more releases to users, based on announcing to
tag and roll when no tag and roll is forthcoming?

I've offered nothing to vote on with respect to the second question,
because we need more input from committers about what really impedes
their ability to efficiently commit to the code base.

Does that clarify the distinction for you?