Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-river-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 37499 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2011 03:49:36 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Apr 2011 03:49:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 19613 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2011 03:49:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-river-dev-archive@river.apache.org Received: (qmail 19591 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2011 03:49:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@river.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@river.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@river.apache.org Received: (qmail 19583 invoked by uid 99); 2 Apr 2011 03:49:32 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 02 Apr 2011 03:49:32 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of pats@acm.org designates 209.86.89.70 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.86.89.70] (HELO elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.70) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 02 Apr 2011 03:49:24 +0000 Received: from [75.8.126.96] (helo=[192.168.1.100]) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5rpf-0007gg-Jl for dev@river.apache.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 23:49:03 -0400 Message-ID: <4D969CA9.8050304@acm.org> Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 20:48:57 -0700 From: Patricia Shanahan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@river.apache.org Subject: Re: Remaining Work For Next Release References: <4D924F39.3010002@acm.org> <4D952191.4070609@acm.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 9a090983a806273c061ba25959e76cc985338a7d01cb3b6a7e972de0d01da940530e790fef03687f40c2ef778d691271350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 75.8.126.96 On 4/1/2011 12:27 PM, Jason Pratt wrote: > i am stating that the first "graduated" release should work for everyone > period. after that if you want to release with known bugs and reduce/not > support sparc or whatever other platform you in your infinite wisdom deem > irrelevant , great. river should have one release it can point at for anyone > wanting to try/use it. I don't know whether SPARC is irrelevant or not - that is one of the questions we are trying to discuss. For admittedly emotional reasons, I hope it continues to be relevant. I worked for many years designing SPARC servers for FPS, Cray Research, and Sun Microsystems. Maybe we'll find the SPARC failure quickly, and it will have a simple fix. In that case, I'm sure we should include the fix in the next release. Suppose it does not work out that way. Then we face a trade-off. How long should we hold up the next release pending a fix for a SPARC-only problem? Remember that means holding back fixes for bugs that affect all systems, SPARC included. You seem to be saying that you think there is no limit on how long we should hold the release. Is that correct? If so, why? Patricia