httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Ruggeri <>
Subject Re: Status for 2.4.20
Date Sun, 27 Mar 2016 01:40:06 GMT

On 3/23/2016 7:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Release Often is hardly a Bad Thing, at least IMHO. When the
> time is right for a release, then we release. It seemed a
> good time, again IMHO.

Kinda late to the party, but shouldn't what's committed to a stable
branch _always_ be ready to release?

Just my .02 on the side conversation. As a sysadmin, I have no strong
preference for release often versus release seldom... just so long as
what is released is stable and won't break my stuff.
At $dayjob where I have to answer to regulatory and audit authorities,
there have been plenty of releases of various software platforms that I
have chosen not to pursue because they don't address anything I need to
worry about. No harm done.

So, my stance as a sysadmin (and probably a fairly common stance, I'd
guess) can be summarized as:
If there's a bug fix for a problem I'm seeing, I'd really like the
release sooner rather than later. On the other hand, if there's a
security fix, I need it released immediately. On yet another hand
(because it seems I have three), if the release has nothing I care
about... then I don't care.
But whatever happens, don't break my configs :-)

As an even further side note... after following this dev list
(community) as long as I have, I'd happily put an httpd 2.4.nightly
against just about any other released software. I can't think of a
single case where something got *committed* to 2.4 that would break my
configs let alone something that got formally released. Indeed, the few
thousand httpd servers I run haven't been harmed by a release in all of
my time as an admin (1.3, 2.0 and 2.4 alike). Our release process is,
indeed, pretty damn good. So whether we release often or release seldom,
we can at least hold our head high while we do it.

Daniel Ruggeri

View raw message