Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary=Apple-Mail-8DE2FB85-CC33-4D62-B631-358A7D7C4660
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Status for 2.4.20
Message-Id: <53F1DD4F-86E8-4FC8-BEE2-4B7BD0CFFB46@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:00:14 +0200
References: <195151A4-3717-42B4-85C9-24E799078B8E@jaguNET.com>
 <a69dde274c77a821df47d9a148b6b663@ausics.net>
 <63BA0754-ABA9-4B14-9462-299667D53999@sharp.fm>
 <8d522c78840bc2bc199c71729459aa62@ausics.net>
 <CACsi250tGLuLW0wCjVTdGP6fC96Fysaovcmu1KLDUY_R8fAhYQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACsi250tGLuLW0wCjVTdGP6fC96Fysaovcmu1KLDUY_R8fAhYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org


--Apple-Mail-8DE2FB85-CC33-4D62-B631-358A7D7C4660
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1

Thanks!

> Am 28.03.2016 um 17:06 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>:
>=20
> @Everyone on this thread - keep it civil.
>=20
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Noel Butler <noel.butler@ausics.net> wr=
ote:
>>> On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote:
>>> On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler <noel.butler@ausics.net> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push wi=
th a release often mentality
>>>>=20
>>>> AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any pendin=
g release, so lets get house in order  S T A B L E , then worry about releas=
es, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set programs to release e=
very 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready or not=E2=80=A6..
>>>=20
>>> It sounds like you=E2=80=99re making drama where there is none.
>>=20
>> sounds like you only look at this from one perspective, and thats not of t=
he users, especially, the larger users.
> =20
> Precisely the point.  If httpd were commercial software, there would only b=
e
> one perspective, that of the largest users with fairly static deployments t=
hat
> demand very small deltas - those that ensure few if any regressions.  Smal=
ler=20
> or more nimble users who need the most recent features are neglected in th=
at
> scenario.
>=20
> 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 or=
igin
> 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 t=
he
> project participants.  Please remember you are a guest on this list.
>=20
> 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 versi=
ons)
> that we could do better for user communities.
>=20
> 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 believe=
d
> 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 th=
is
> model, but it was driven by competing interests by the developers of this
> project, who are also users --- as opposed to external "demands".
>=20
> We will seek to continue to release early and often, and one of our curren=
t
> faults is that we haven't been releasing 2.5-dev often enough to engage us=
ers
> in the next release series, but pouring most of our energy into wedging th=
ese
> 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 lifet=
ime.
>=20
> 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 relea=
sed
> flavor by RedHat.  They go to the extra effort to backport fixes-only and p=
lan
> 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.
>=20
> Just to wrap up another tl;dr post... others offered you a different optio=
n,
> 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 impossibl=
e
> to assure that a change set (release) will be an improvement for each and
> every use case.
>=20
> Use the version that is most appropriate to your use case, and seek a=20
> commercial product if you expect the sort of stasis that your protest
> appears to seek.
>=20
>=20

--Apple-Mail-8DE2FB85-CC33-4D62-B631-358A7D7C4660
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D=
utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div></div><div>+1</div><div><br></div><div=
>Thanks!</div><div><br>Am 28.03.2016 um 17:06 schrieb William A Rowe Jr &lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net">wrowe@rowe-clan.net</a>&gt;:<br><br><=
/div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_ext=
ra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">@Everyone on this thread - keep it civil.</di=
v><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Ma=
r 25, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Noel Butler <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:=
noel.butler@ausics.net" target=3D"_blank">noel.butler@ausics.net</a>&gt;</sp=
an> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On 25/03/2016 1=
9:52, Graham Leggett wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px=
 #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:noel.butler@au=
sics.net" target=3D"_blank">noel.butler@ausics.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px=
 #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push with a r=
elease often mentality<br>
<br>
AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any pending rel=
ease, so lets get house in order&nbsp; S T A B L E , then worry about releas=
es, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set programs to release e=
very 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready or not=E2=80=A6..<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It sounds like you=E2=80=99re making drama where there is none.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
sounds like you only look at this from one perspective, and thats not of the=
 users, especially, the larger users.</blockquote><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Prec=
isely the point.&nbsp; If httpd were commercial software, there would only b=
e</div><div>one perspective, that of the largest users with fairly static de=
ployments that</div><div>demand very small deltas - those that ensure few if=
 any regressions.&nbsp; Smaller&nbsp;</div><div>or more nimble users who nee=
d the most recent features are neglected in that</div><div>scenario.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>Instead httpd does not operate as commercial software, it i=
s open source.</div><div>When it breaks, you get to keep (and patch) all the=
 pieces.&nbsp; That's the origin</div><div>story of this software and our co=
ntinued model for success.&nbsp; No amount of</div><div>pleas that "it shoul=
dn't be that way" are going to change the mindset of the</div><div>project p=
articipants.&nbsp; Please remember you are a guest on this list.</div><div><=
br></div><div>When we decided during 1.3.x that things were so shaky (third p=
arty module</div><div>recompilation was frequently necessary during the earl=
y 1.3.0-1.3.14 versions)</div><div>that we could do better for user communit=
ies.</div><div><br></div><div>Therefore, when we released 2.0 as GA, we decl=
ared the ABI stable, and</div><div>proceeded on ABI and API breaking work on=
 a 2.1-dev trunk branch.&nbsp; We all</div><div>agreed that 2.1 wouldn't be G=
A, but we would release 2.2.0 once we believed</div><div>that branch was rea=
dy to be ABI-stable.&nbsp; That model continues to this day,</div><div>break=
ing changes are on 2.5-dev in trunk, and we seek 100% compatibility</div><di=
v>on the 2.4.x branch.&nbsp; There were contentious discussions that led us t=
o this</div><div>model, but it was driven by competing interests by the deve=
lopers of this</div><div>project, who are also users --- as opposed to exter=
nal "demands".</div><div><br></div><div>We will seek to continue to release e=
arly and often, and one of our current</div><div>faults is that we haven't b=
een releasing 2.5-dev often enough to engage users</div><div>in the next rel=
ease series, but pouring most of our energy into wedging these</div><div>cha=
nges back into the 2.4.x branch.&nbsp; But unlike commercial software and</d=
iv><div>many OSS projects, we don't declare 2.4.0 to be "feature complete", a=
nd</div><div>we continue to improve it in straightforward ways throughout th=
e 2.4 lifetime.</div><div><br></div><div>If you want to package a stable "pr=
oduct", you can follow the RedHat and</div><div>others' model.&nbsp; Just to=
 take that single example, httpd 2.4.3 is the released</div><div>flavor by R=
edHat.&nbsp; They go to the extra effort to backport fixes-only and plan</di=
v><div>to support that version for some 10 years or so.&nbsp; That is why ma=
ny larger</div><div>users choose to stick with something like RHEL or CentOS=
 or similar</div><div>distributions which are feature-frozen and much more s=
table than an active</div><div>product undergoing constant enhancement.</div=
><div><br></div><div>Just to wrap up another tl;dr post... others offered yo=
u a different option,</div><div>skip those versions which are too "experimen=
tal" for your tastes, and wait</div><div>for bugs to shake out.&nbsp; We ass=
ert that 2.4.newest is the best available</div><div>version, but in such a l=
arge, modular and flexible project, it's impossible</div><div>to assure that=
 a change set (release) will be an improvement for each and</div><div>every u=
se case.</div><div><br></div><div>Use the version that is most appropriate t=
o your use case, and seek a&nbsp;</div><div>commercial product if you expect=
 the sort of stasis that your protest</div><div>appears to seek.</div><div><=
br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail-8DE2FB85-CC33-4D62-B631-358A7D7C4660--