> It could be a chicken-and-egg problem. If the developers of those tools don't have a > lot of users asking for Apache 2.0 support, what is their motivation for providing it? > They are probably like us, with lots of other things on their to-do lists. If we had a > golden release, perhaps that would help change the situation.
Really not trying to throw out flamebait, but....... I think Greg hit the nail on the head here. There hasn't been much visibility to anyone not following this list (or even to many following it) of a timeline or roadmap to gold on 2.0. Do people know that all the major interfaces are stable? Are they? Not faulting anyone here, just pointing out that in the eyes of people not day-to-day involved, Apache 2 feels like it has been "almost ready" for a very, very, very long time. Did the additional development time yield a better product? Absolutely. But it did have a cost, at least in terms of public perception and excitement. Is there yet a consensus on a timetable for getting this to gold, or is it still a "when it is ready" approach? If the latter, it's going to be hard to get people very excited about even kicking the tires on the betas. It's going to be really hard to build momentum towards a release without a release target and active release management. According to the latest STATUS, we've had only one tag/roll event (2.0.31) in the last three months. It's also confusing to customers when at least two vendors are distributing Web servers that are "based on 2.0" when 2.0 is still not fully baked. Justin's work on coordinating the .32 release has been extremely positive in this regard (way to go Justin!). A few more releases like this can probably get 2.0-gold out the door. Without that kind of focus on and ownership of releases, it's going to be really hard to ship this thing. - Danny PS> A simple roadmap and timeline, like the one that Subversion has at http://subversion.tigris.org/project_status.html, would go a very long way towards addressing these issues.
