httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@apache.org
Subject Re: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?
Date Sat, 12 Oct 2002 21:50:01 GMT

I finally figured out why a 2.1 branch bothers me so much.  It isn't being
done the way it should be done.  When apache-nspr was created, it wasn't
because there was a big discussion on-list and Dean decided to go do the
work.  When apache-apr was created, it wasn't because Bill, Manoj, and I
started a big discussion and then did the work.  When apache-2.0 was
created, it wasn't becasue Dean explained what he wanted to do to
apache-apr and then did the work.  When httpd-2.0 was created, Roy didn't
explain what he was going to do, and then go do the work.

In all of these cases, there was a developer or three, who created a CVS
tree either in their home directories, or in the main CVS area.  They made
the major changes that they wanted to see made, and then they announced
the changes to the list, and invited people to help them make the projects
better.

One of three things happened with these trees.  Either they were picked up
as the new development tree and the old tree was lost.  Or, they were
completely ignored.  Or, they were tried and rejected for specific
reasons.

With the fabled 2.1 branch, people want to have a discussion about what is
going to go into it, then they want to fork, and then they want to start
writing code.  That is a completely backwards approach.  If you have a
major change that you want to make to 2.0, make the change, either in a
sandbox, or in a copy of the current tree.  Then, invite people to look at
what you did.  Once we see how big the change is, we can decided if 1)  We
like the change to you made, and 2) if it is big enough to warrant a bump
to 2.1.

There is no push to branch 2.1, becasue there is no code that warrants a
branch.  Personally, if you are going to write cod, I suggest just
creating a CVS repository in your home directory, and allowing people to
collaborate there.  If the code is accepted, it is easy to move it into
the main CVS area.  In fact, of all of the examples above, I don't thik
anybody started working in the main CVS area.  I know Dean didn't with
either apache-nspr or apache-2.0.  I think Roy had a basically working
copy before httpd-2.0 was created, and Billo and I worked without CVS
until Manoj started helping us.

Bottom-line:  Talking about a branch before there is any code is
completely bogus.  None of us know what is going to be in 2.1.  I know I
have some ideas for how to do the filesystem abstraction that I want to
play around with.  But I also know that a bunch of other people have ideas
too.  Which one will be the foundation for the work?  I don't know, and I
can't until we see some actual code.  Why should one person be allowed to
put their code in the httpd-2.1 branch?  They shouldn't.  I will
personally be doing some pwork in /home/rbb/cvs either on www.apache.org
or www.rkbloom.net in the next few weeks.  Once I have a working
prototype, I will open it up to people to look at and play with.  Only
then can we decide if it belongs in 2.1 or 2.0.

As for the Auth patches, BTW, the code was created first, and then it was
decided to put it in 2.0.  That was the way it should be done.  However,
Justin, it would be really cool if you could create a simple Perl script
that takes an old config and updates it to a new one.  It may just be the
LoadModule lines, but automating that work would be really nice for our
users.  That idea was thrown out in a conversation I had with Will.  I
think it was his idea, but I honestly can't remember.

Ryan

On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> --On Friday, October 11, 2002 10:59 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr." 
> <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> 
> > I'm calling for a consensus opinion that the mod_auth changes
> > are simply too radical to introduce into a current version.  We keep
> > treating the GA tree as a development branch.  Many newcomers
> > (with less than a couple of years here in httpd land) and a very
> > few  old timers persist in doing so.
> 
> We had a vote before the changes were checked in.  I don't know what 
> else you'd like to have done.  It was the stated consensus of the 
> group that these changes go into 2.0 not a 2.1 - knowing full well 
> that it could break directive compatibility.  So, I think the notion 
> that some rule was violated is absurd - I believe everything was done 
> in the mystical 'Apache way.'
> 
> The one thing that I dislike about a 2.1 is that we've stated that we 
> can't force any developer to go to the new version.  Other committers 
> have stated that they won't develop or forward-port fixes to 2.1. 
> And, some developers might not back-port fixes from a 2.1 to 2.0. 
> That's not going to be helpful to our users.
> 
> My hope is that when we go to a 2.1, all developers believe it is 
> time and 2.0 should be closed.  Right now, I don't believe that is 
> the case.  -- justin
> 

-- 

_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
550 Jean St
Oakland CA 94610
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org


Mime
View raw message