httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steffen <>
Subject Re: Re: Why tag 2.5.0? [Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?}today]
Date Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:28:36 GMT

wrong link where to clean up:

On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen  wrote:
> Can someone clean up the not needed anymore  backports/branches at
> 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 
>>> <>:
>>> 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.
>>> 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 <> 
>>> 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.

View raw message