On May 28, 2015 8:38 AM, "Yann Ylavic" <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:32 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> I think I would have preferred Jeff's form of the vote, which would > >> have allowed us to know the potential "operating forces" on 2.2.x. > > > > > > We determined from that poll that there were >3 committers who > > would fix bugs on 2.2, so that discussion was already done. > > That was an informal poll, whereas an official one would probably have > allowed us to count ourselves and maybe see if we can still maintain > 2.2 effectively.
The project's definition... no, the ASF definition of effective participants -is- 3 :) I've packed it in when code bases no longer had that number of participants. E.g. the 1.3/2.0 EOL was by unanimous consensus, retiring mod_aspdotnet was by unanimous consensus. The mod_arm4 code should likely also be retired, I wouldn't anticipate an objection. Where 1 or 2 individuals want an effort to persist at the ASF, and cannot find a third hand, that is a sad outcome, but hasn't happened at httpd that I recall. It is unlikely to be the case here, either. > Speeking for myself, if the cost of using (hence backporting to) 2.2.x > exceeds significantly the one > (technical/political/educational/whatever-al) of upgrading to 2.4.x, > I'll choose the latter... > ISTM that it's also a question of workforce, not that I doubt about > committers wrt 2.2.x, I just wish I had a better idea with that poll > (>3 is nice to know, but so is <?). Agreed, and that's why I just responded to the poll. Most backports won't reach that threshold for most of us. Complex patches may be proposed and die for want of 3 sets of eyeballs. That is ok, too. > >> Sure people like having their release maintained, for free is even > >> better, > > > > They like having their new releases for free even more-so. What > > inspired you to call out 'free' as in cash-in-lieu-of-beer? > > I meant free of time, work, or elbow/finger grease ;) (: thanks for clarifying. > >> the investment is done either by the committers (for all > >> living versions) or the users (upgrading). > > > > No, it's not an either-or proposition. Committers, for those who > > aren't in a position to upgrade (and only those who maintain an > > interest, e.g. those >3 who responded to Jeff's survey). And the > > users who are stuck in an update trajectory, for the time being, > > or who have the freedom to upgrade (preferably, their entire host > > or container OS). > > Well, some (maybe most, but not all!) won't move unless/until they > face a missing security/bug fix in 2.2.x. > Why would they if they don't need a new feature, and why will they in > 1/2/3.. years? Why indeed. Hopefully we offer compelling reasons. I'm much more concerned to help people avoid provisioning an old crufty version such as 2.2.30 versus adopting 2.4.13 from the get-go. Whatever we can do to help with that aught to be welcomed by the user community. Thanks for your thoughts.
