httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noel Butler <noel.but...@ausics.net>
Subject Re: Status for 2.4.20
Date Tue, 29 Mar 2016 07:37:53 GMT
On 29/03/2016 01:06, William A Rowe Jr wrote:

> @Everyone on this thread - keep it civil. 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Noel Butler <noel.butler@ausics.net> wrote:
> On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler <noel.butler@ausics.net> wrote:
> 
> as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push with a release often
mentality
> 
> AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any pending release, so
lets get house in order  S T A B L E , then worry about releases, jesus christ, we are not
ubuntu or redhat with set programs to release every 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready
or not..... 
> It sounds like you're making drama where there is none.
 sounds like you only look at this from one perspective, and thats not
of the users, especially, the larger users. 

Precisely the point.  If httpd were commercial software, there would
only be 
one perspective, that of the largest users with fairly static
deployments that 
demand very small deltas - those that ensure few if any regressions. 
Smaller  
or more nimble users who need the most recent features are neglected in
that 
scenario. 

Instead httpd does not operate as commercial software, it is open
source. 
When it breaks, you get to keep (and patch) all the pieces.  That's the
origin 
story of this software and our continued model for success.  No amount
of 
pleas that "it shouldn't be that way" are going to change the mindset of
the 
project participants.  Please remember you are a guest on this list. 

When we decided during 1.3.x that things were so shaky (third party
module 
recompilation was frequently necessary during the early 1.3.0-1.3.14
versions) 
that we could do better for user communities. 

Therefore, when we released 2.0 as GA, we declared the ABI stable, and 
proceeded on ABI and API breaking work on a 2.1-dev trunk branch.  We
all 
agreed that 2.1 wouldn't be GA, but we would release 2.2.0 once we
believed 
that branch was ready to be ABI-stable.  That model continues to this
day, 
breaking changes are on 2.5-dev in trunk, and we seek 100% compatibility

on the 2.4.x branch.  There were contentious discussions that led us to
this 
model, but it was driven by competing interests by the developers of
this 
project, who are also users --- as opposed to external "demands". 

We will seek to continue to release early and often, and one of our
current 
faults is that we haven't been releasing 2.5-dev often enough to engage
users 
in the next release series, but pouring most of our energy into wedging
these 
changes back into the 2.4.x branch.  But unlike commercial software and 
many OSS projects, we don't declare 2.4.0 to be "feature complete", and 
we continue to improve it in straightforward ways throughout the 2.4
lifetime. 

If you want to package a stable "product", you can follow the RedHat and

others' model.  Just to take that single example, httpd 2.4.3 is the
released 
flavor by RedHat.  They go to the extra effort to backport fixes-only
and plan 
to support that version for some 10 years or so.  That is why many
larger 
users choose to stick with something like RHEL or CentOS or similar 
distributions which are feature-frozen and much more stable than an
active 
product undergoing constant enhancement. 

Just to wrap up another tl;dr post... others offered you a different
option, 
skip those versions which are too "experimental" for your tastes, and
wait 
for bugs to shake out.  We assert that 2.4.newest is the best available 
version, but in such a large, modular and flexible project, it's
impossible 
to assure that a change set (release) will be an improvement for each
and 
every use case. 

Use the version that is most appropriate to your use case, and seek a  
commercial product if you expect the sort of stasis that your protest 
appears to seek. 

Going by this, I've not seen some posts, Bills reply makes it appear I
said the above, which I didnt, but I'll leave it as I think this thread
has run its course anyway, I've put my comments forward on behalf of
myself and many admins, I accept you only see this as one opinion since
they are not posting here, next time it comes up, I'll put a call on the
other lists for every single one of them to sub to this list and put
their thoughts forward :) 

-- 

 		If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you
best first read  http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/

 
Mime
View raw message