www-community mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe+apa...@sunstarsys.com>
Subject Re: Rules for Revolutionaries
Date Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:38:08 GMT
Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.Coar@Golux.Com> writes:

> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > 
> > Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org> writes:
> > 
> > > I believe it was a mistake to allow two different
> > > codebases to share the same name.
> > 
> > I'm not convinced that "having two codebases" is
> > necessarily a mistake.
> it's not the multiple codebases that's the issue; it's
> that they both had the same name and both continued
> active development.
> as a counterexample, both httpd 1.3 and 2.0 were in
> concurrent active development for a long time.  1.3
> development slowed down, and when 2.0 was finally
> released, 1.3 went into a sort of maintenance mode --
> meaning that bugfixes and minor backported features
> can show up in it, but nothing that doesn't also
> appear in 2.0 at the same time.

AIUI, Sun's code contribution (that resulted in the 
tomcat 3.x series) interrupted prior tomcat development
at the asf.  That initital work was eventually resumed 
and became Catalina -> tomcat 4.  httpd started with 
the NCSA code and worked from there.  I don't think 
the situations are similar enough to warrant a 
straightforward comparison.

In theory, perl development has multiple concurrent
release branches- the 5.5, 5.6, and 5.8 lines are
(somewhat) independently maintained (much of the community
friction around tomcat's 3.3/4.0 reminds me of perl 5.5/5.6
circa April 2000). Although the current release is 5.8.0, 
the next scheduled release was supposed to be 5.6.2.  It's 
not likely to happen because there isn't much mindshare 
left for maintaining/improving the 5.6.x line.  Most perl 
developers are busy working on 5.8, 5.9 or parrot.

Joe Schaefer

View raw message