httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: 2.2 and 2.4 and 2.6/3.0
Date Wed, 27 May 2015 16:56:18 GMT
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> >
> > Focus your energy on anything you like.
> >
>
> Can't grok whether that's snarky or not... I'll assume not :)
>

Please assume not :)  ASF projects should still remain
scratch-your-own-itch(es).

Your message certainly had an 'adopt my agenda' tone to it, but I similarly
didn't assume this was belligerent :)

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> My point is that if we EOL 2.2 (with some definition of "EOL")
> then people on 2.2 (or earlier) will have some *real* incentive
> to move off of 2.2 towards 2.4 (or later)...
>

Define "people".  The overwhelming majority of "people" use whatever is
distributed with their OS.

If your "people" are the distributors, just surveying current and
immediately forthcoming distributions, it seems the message got through
loud and clear.

Basically, we need something to "kick" people off 2.2
> and get them to 2.4.


We've always used the 1 year yardstick, and from the graphs and
distribution EOL's, 1 year is too soon.

At the Tomcat project they generally support 3 major/minor releases in
parallel.  Here, our support has oscillated between 2 and 3 releases since
2.0.36.  A new minor release has usually been the trigger to EOL the 3rd
oldest release.  In the real-world, we won't hit a point where there is
only one major/minor release is wide use, not unless we slow the pace of
major/minor releases to once every ten years ... not a goal to aspire to.

By stating that 2.2 will ONLY get
> security related fixes and no new features or improvements,
> and that 2.2 will be EOL by 201X, that will be encouragement.
>

It should be readily apparent from CHANGES for 2.2 and 2.4 which gets more
attention.  All of our announcements clarify that 2.4.new is the latest and
greatest.

If there are three PMC folks who want a bug fixed in 2.2, what is your
point in establishing an agenda against that fix?  In a BDFL project, that
posturing is expected.

Clearly there are very few bug fixes that attract developer's attention on
2.2 anymore.  A better and perhaps less offensive question might be; how do
we, as a project, communicate how legacy the legacy release really is?

That, of course, assumes that we "care" one way or another
> about moving people to a more up-to-date and performant
> httpd, as well as whatever the future holds for httpd.


Is there a reason you imply that contributors at this project don't seek
this?  The only divisions I see on the horizon are gaining consensus on the
scope of any radical changes between 2.4.x and httpd-next.

Mime
View raw message