Exactly. If enough people feel strongly about this, then an able hero will volunteer to maintain a "stable" branch with backports of critical fixes. I have looked at my existing commitments; I don't have time. I do think that the success of cherokee will ultimately depend on having a community committed to maintaining a stable packaged release. Meanwhile people who need that stability in production should consider the possibility that apache might still be a better match for them now.
On 7/11/10, Chris Darnell <[email protected]> wrote: >> Your idea it's more like a "rolling release" than maintaining two >> releases, to avoid the extra man-power to do those backports over the >> time. >> >> But I think we should make the extra effort, that won't be that >> frequent, to fix the important bugs* while the development releases >> reach a "stable" point again. >> >> It's not like having two branches, and it would make easier for the >> users to have Cherokee in production, enjoying the bleeding edge stuff >> and at the same time without having to worry in each upgrade. >> > > This is beginning to sound like a Debian vs. Gentoo discussion. > IMO, the current model works fine and any production environment > should have a testing server for any upgrades which might cause > trouble. > _______________________________________________ > Cherokee mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee > _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
