On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 01:54:26PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > To me, a useful release plan is one that:
> > * tells developers working on httpd-2.0 what the important things to
> > work on for 2.0-GA are,
> > * tells 3rd-party module developers what sort of interface they can
> > expect, and
> > * tells end users what feature set and performance characteristics
> > they can expect.
> >
> > The "tag when you believe it is appropriate" model is an effective process
> > for software builds, but not necessarily for product releases.
+1.
> We specifically stated that we were not going to do those three things. The point
> to this releaes model, is to allow the code to keep moving forward.
>
> You all may notice that I raikl against this release process quite often, and ask
> people not to make sweeping changes, because we need to release. However,
> this is the model that was decided upon a while ago.
Sweeping changes, eh? I wouldn't know anyone attempting to do that...
I completely agree with Brian here. A release plan and a tag strategy
are very different.
We can tag at any time to produce a build, but we don't have any
guidelines which say, "These need to be addressed or met by 2.0-GA."
We should have performance characteristics (i.e. comparable to 1.3?),
features (SSL), a degree of robustness (survives httpd-test and
daedalus load for 48 hours?), etc. Otherwise, a tag is just a
shot-in-the-dark.
You and OtherBill keep saying that 2.0 is "really soon now" and that
we can't commit or do certain things because of that. IMHO, that's
what Roy was wailing about. I have no clue what you mean by 2.0.
-- justin
