On 08-sep-09, at 00:13, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Alvaro Lopez Ortega dijo [Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 08:28:24PM +0200]: >>> I'd really prefer sticking to 0.99.20 as it seems to me to be way >>> more solid than newer versions. >> >> That'd be a mistake. Even though we might eventually introduce some >> regression, in the last year each new Cherokee release has been much >> better than its predecesor. And I'm not talking about features >> here, I'm >> speaking about stability, documentation, usability fixes, etc. New >> features have been the exception. >> >> At this second, the most stable Cherokee version is 0.99.23+1 >> (trunk). >> Sticking to 0.99.20 would imply to give up on a number of fixes and >> improvements. Your beloved users do not deserve that. > > Ok. But how do you feel about having as the most recommended way to go > for our users to be 0.7.2 right now? Remember that Debian is _not_ > Debian unstable, and should never be seen as such. Is there value in > providing a two-year-old version of Cherokee? Are you (the team) > willing to support users running it?
All those questions kind of have the same answer: We cannot "inherit" Debian's commitments. If we did so we would never move forward. The current development model does not quite fit the way Debian works nowadays, that's easy to see. However, there's value in Debian providing a non-bleeding-edge version of Cherokee. Next year we'll be finally performing Cherokee 1.x. If at that point Debian were shipping 0.99.23 it'd be better than nothing. Cherokee 1.x will be better, but obviously Cherokee 0.99.23 is being already useful for a whole of people today. If it's utile today, it'll be next year as well. >>> So, to make it short: Should I continue to package Cherokee? Or >>> would >>> you consider better for Cherokee's current development stage to be >>> available straight from you? >> >> I have no doubt what so ever, you definitely should. >> >> You've done a great job so far and there's no reason to stop >> packaging >> the server. Obviously the development cycles of Debian and Cherokee >> don't match, but that should not be any sort of show-stopper.. > > What would you say about continuing as the Cherokee maintainer, but > exclusively through an unofficial, always-up-to-date channel, as > Leonel is doing? It wouldn't make much sense, actually. First of all, you guys have done an amazing work, I could not simply keep up with it. Second, I don't think I should move my focus from the code base (and surrounding tasks). > Note that I am _not_ suggesting I want to drop it. However, I fear > having users complain about $foo and me not being able to answer. And > no, "please update" is not a valid answer. Well, that's something we can work on. If we make cherokee more tolerant to configuration changes, and specially if we implement features like the cherokee-admin configuration auto-converter, there should not be much of a problem in the near future. We are not facing an easy task here.. so, the sooner we start working (together), the better. :-) Cheers!! -- Octality http://www.octality.com/ _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
