Dale Ghent wrote: >On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > >| Unlike others here, I'm not emotionally invested in getting 2.0 >| out "soon". If it takes a few more months for it to be Ready, >| that's fine with me. I think there are some interested parties >| that would rather have it released sooner than later, though, >| and I would really rather release something 'good' than something >| that's just 'good enough'. > >Oh, definitely. There's no reason to go half-way, when (esp. in the case >of this) one should go as far as one can to release something that has >very high quality associated with it. Afterall, this is the most widely >used web server on the internet. > >I'm not saying ap 2.0 has to be out next week, or even next month for that >matter. There just seems to be a lack of foresight here. The way things >are now, "a few more months" will turn into a few more months after that, >etc. etc. > >Apache 2.0 is entering into it's third year of on-going development, and >lots of good code and ideas have been put into it. But the longer it goes >on without any enforced release management or goals, the more it looks >like vaporware to the masses out there who arent "in the know." > >It's not a question of 'where's the beef?". It's more like "does anyone >have a clue as to when the beef will be done?" >
But we do know when it will be done. There's a list of items under the "Release Showstoppers" that define what needs to happen before we can declare a 2.0.x version Generally Available. Fortunately, this list is short. It doesn't contain any new features, which is a good thing. It contains one performance fix and half a dozen important functional bugs. --Brian
