Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

2017-01-20 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Jan 20, 2017, at 10:43 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 9:53 AM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: >> Many if not most developers disagree with you, most developers agree that >> adding features and enhancements is disruptive. 2.4.x

Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

2017-01-20 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Eric Covener wrote: >> >> Maybe a [POLL] thread is in order, specifically for the topic of >> enhancements/stability in 2.4 and ignoring aspirations about a new >>

Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

2017-01-20 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > > Maybe a [POLL] thread is in order, specifically for the topic of > enhancements/stability in 2.4 and ignoring aspirations about a new > versioning system or 3.0. > > e.g. > > 2.4.x is: > [ ] evolving just fine > [ ] too

Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

2017-01-20 Thread Eric Covener
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 9:53 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Many if not most developers disagree with you, most developers agree that > adding features and enhancements is disruptive. 2.4.x adds features and > enhancements to every release, and is therefore not low-risk, and

Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

2017-01-20 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > This is somewhat orthogonal to Bill's current suggestion. It solves a > different set of problems, more related to the short-term > features-versus-regressions argument and less related to the long-term ABI >

Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

2017-01-20 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 20 Jan 2017, at 2:15 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: > >> Ignore the versioning number then; that's not really the core of my >> proposal. The key points I'm making are >> >> - introduce the concept of

Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

2017-01-20 Thread Graham Leggett
On 20 Jan 2017, at 2:15 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: > Ignore the versioning number then; that's not really the core of my proposal. > The key points I'm making are > > - introduce the concept of a low-risk release line We have always had this, the current low-risk release

Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

2017-01-19 Thread David Zuelke
On 20.01.2017, at 02:00, Eric Covener wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: >> We branch off from the 2.4.25 tag. This is our low-risk 2.4.25.x patch line. >> There are no new features or large code changes to this branch,

Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

2017-01-19 Thread Eric Covener
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > We branch off from the 2.4.25 tag. This is our low-risk 2.4.25.x patch line. > There are no new features or large code changes to this branch, there are no > refactorings or whitespace changes or huge cleanups; the

Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

2017-01-19 Thread Jacob Champion
On 01/19/2017 04:25 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 03:49:14PM -0800, Jacob Champion wrote: We branch off from the 2.4.25 tag. I am not sure you mean this literally, but anyway: I mean that the 2.4.25.x branch starts from the commit that we tagged as 2.4.25. That's all.

Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

2017-01-19 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 03:49:14PM -0800, Jacob Champion wrote: > We branch off from the 2.4.25 tag. I am not sure you mean this literally, but anyway: While basing a branch off of a tag (svn copy ^/tags/foo ^/branches/newbranch) works, I would recommend to always create a branch first, and then

Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

2017-01-19 Thread Jacob Champion
On 01/19/2017 03:57 PM, David Zuelke wrote: Please no .micro releases. Most of the world is now trying to stick to http://semver.org principles. I agree with you, actually, but as you know, httpd is not on SemVer currently and I'm not sure we can get there before 3.0. Maybe we'll all agree

Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

2017-01-19 Thread Jim Jagielski
I can even imagine a world where that makes sense...

Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

2017-01-19 Thread David Zuelke
Please no .micro releases. Most of the world is now trying to stick to http://semver.org principles. Why not just keep 2.4 for maintenance, and start working on 2.6 immediately? Or 2.5? I honestly think that the current "odd numbers are unstable" approach is not helpful with this whole