httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Reset out x.minor.z definition of 'minor' at httpd?
Date Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:36:21 GMT

> On Jan 20, 2017, at 12:47 PM, David Zuelke <dz@heroku.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I'd actually like to question the whole practice of porting features back to older branches.
I think that's the core reason why trunk is in total disarray, and why no substantial releases
have been made. There is just no reason for anyone to push forward the state of 2.6 or even
3.0 if you can just backport whatever you want.
> 
> Just define 2.4 as "bug fixes only" the moment 2.6 is released, and start the process
of getting 2.6 out ASAP. In fact, why not declare 2.4 that right now? It's already "stable".
It doesn't need more features that suddenly change behavior from 2.4.28 to 2.4.29 or whatever
(that's the opposite of what users are looking for).

Ummm... that's kind of the goal. You are telling us nothing we
don't already know. The issue is that 2.6 has been stuck in
a holding pattern, and it is unfair to our users, and our
developers, to have good, useful features locked in trunk
with no hope of reaching outside for some unknown amount of
time.

So, you say, the question is Why Not Work On 2.6 And Push Getting
That Out. The reason is because some people then want/desire/demand
huge restructurings in 2.6, which means, of course, that forking/
branching off 2.5/2.6 is the EASY part. The hard part is controlling
the urge to then go "wild" on 2.5/2.6, which drastically increases
the time until we finally get GA. And some people also want NO NEW
FEATURES in 2.4 during this whole timeframe. I know, crazy.

If I really was the dictator Bill tries to insinuate that I am,
I would simply branch 2.5 *right now* off of trunk. And then
say the goal is to get 2.5 stable enough to go GA as 2.6... no
big restructuring, no huge and invasive API changes. These are
all good, and needed, but if the goal is to make 2.4 our 2.2-like
"stable and no new features" branch, we need a 2.6 that happens
SOON.

And finally, I don't believe at ALL that things are as dire as
Bill claims nor that trunk is "in total disarray" as you state.

I do appreciate the insight related to PHP. It goes well with
the insight on how lots and lots of other projects handle
this. But what works for PHP, a language, may not necessarily
work for httpd, a commodity server.
Mime
View raw message