httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steffen <i...@apachelounge.com>
Subject Re: Why tag 2.5.0? [Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?}today]
Date Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:26:37 GMT

Can someone clean up the not needed anymore  backports/branches at
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/?sortby=date




On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:12, Stefan Eissing  wrote:
> FTR: I refuse any discussion where people, already in the initial
> statements, discuss each others merit and downfalls and whatnot.
>
> If you want to talk about technical stuff and/or propose a project 
> plan,
> start a new thread without all that destructive crap I will not waste
> any more time than this mail about.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stefan
>
>>
>> Am 24.10.2017 um 00:17 schrieb William A Rowe Jr 
>> <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>:
>>
>> Jim, you have very vocally and hostility reacted to *all* discussion
>> of improving the release process at the httpd project.
>>
>> The project bylaws are clear, no individual PMC member may
>> block a release (the PMC chair may, owing to the fact that they
>> alone represent the board as the appointed VP, that's another
>> topic entirely.)
>>
>> I have no evidence that you perceive a problem with the httpd
>> release status quo, and no evidence that you have reconsidered
>> your positions expressed during the past year, so I presume
>> none of these are changed, and further discussion is not
>> necessary at this step.
>>
>> You've insisted we maintain the status quo with no changes,
>> and I'm proceeding based on our historical and documented
>> practices to move the project along. This is an obvious case
>> of agree-to-disagree, I accept your demand to hold to precedent,
>> and will proceed under that structure to ask wiling users to help
>> us determine the usability of the current code trunk/. In short,
>> you have engendered this solution.
>>
>> This is only a starting point, not a result. Multiple -alphas will
>> usually occur, and I can't foresee any conclusions on a roadmap
>> before the end of the year, and a beta-worthy candidate before
>> the end of winter.
>>
>> (Northern) winter tends to be a period of greater activity, summers
>> are very quiet in comparison. The approach to progress under our
>> existing model is incremental; code and release, code and release,
>> until the committee agrees that the code is ready to move from an
>> -alpha to a -beta, from a -beta to graduate to 2.6.0/3.0.0. This
>> approach avoids all personal conflicts by getting away from
>> people debating opinion or process, and going back to debating
>> the features and code.
>>
>> I am reading your reply as adding additional process which does
>> not exist, and appears to be thrown-up roadblocks. I'll ignore such
>> attempts to introduce process until any proposed process has the
>> majority +1 support by the project. If others here at httpd want
>> to begin defining the structure of 2.6.0/3.0.0 (the next possible
>> GA release, because 2.5.x is not GA, by policy), I'm all for it.
>> It's not a prereq to begin.
>>
>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html
>>
>> By "vetoed tag" it does not mean you can veto a tag. That wording
>> means that there is no code at present which carries a veto. I'm
>> unaware of any code in trunk that is vetoed in the 2.5.x development
>> trunk branch.
>>
>> Please inform within 72 hours of what you are vetoing from -alpha
>> examination, so that I can remove or route around it and avoid any
>> unnecessary tags.
>>
>> The rules were designed from day 1 of the ASF as a foundation
>> that no one individual can block forward progress of the project,
>> any PMC member may branch, or tag. The majority decision of
>> the project decides whether that tag is adopted as a release
>> (even -alpha requires a majority, 3 +1's!)
>>
>> As the saying goes "We won't know till we try"... let's see if we
>> have collectively treated trunk/ well, and whether adventurous
>> users on the bleeding edge like what they see.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The issue obviously isn't in the *tagging*. It is the unknown
>>> aspect of what is expected AFTER the tagging.
>>>
>>> I see the tagging as simply a mechanism to force action
>>> upon the PMC to go down a route which the PMC has not
>>> decided, from what I can tell, to go down. Maybe I'm wrong.
>>> But your reply tends to support that interpretation. The tag, per
>>> se, is not the goal. The goal is to "push" 2.5.0 when, again
>>> from what I can tell, the PMC has not decided that such
>>> a push is warranted/needed/desired/whatever.
>>>
>>> So if you want to tag, first generate a roadmap, that can be
>>> shared and discussed with the PMC, and the dev community,
>>> what that 1st step is intended to lead us to. But let's
>>> not pretend that such tagging is simply noting a SVN revision.
>>>
>>> You may complain that I "single handedly" do Foo and Bar
>>> and other dictatorial and dangerous stuff, but AFAIK, I've
>>> never done or proposed anything w/o bringing it up
>>> to the list 1st (ala PROXY support, mod_wsgi, health
>>> checks... etc...). Even w/ releases and tags I give
>>> people more than 24hours notice. Unless, of course,
>>> your tag was under Lazy Consensus, in which case my
>>> "veto" was valid, if more "strong" than required. In
>>> which case, I am sorry for that.
>


Mime
View raw message