On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 10:29:33PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > ++1 to everthing in this e-mail. > > Thank you Greg, you have just stated everything that I have been thinking > for sometime. Remember when I tagged 2.0.33? I did that without any > notice to prove that it could be done without a four week discussion > on-list. Granted, we didn't release that version, but it was better than > the previous tag, so we could have if we had wanted to.
Oh, both of you can go cry me a river. If you don't like it, go make your own release. And, Greg is right - he could release .37 now. But, one of the rules that Roy mentioned is that the release must be made with the idea of public consumption. What value would a .37 alpha only released for fixes be over the nightly CVS snapshots? However, I feel that: - Poorly tested releases don't fare well at all. As much as you two go screaming that we should blindly take stuff from CVS and call it a release and be done with it, I just haven't found that practice to work at all. I'm free to do my own thing as you are. I just don't buy that your strategy leads to high-quality and well-coordinated releases. I have seen this strategy back-fire too many times. But, I obviously can not stop both of you. Go ahead and waste your time - and mine unfortunately since I'll have to test your release. - A showstopper can be removed from STATUS by either majority or by fiat of the RM. Start trying to convince people that it isn't a showstopper. I don't much care what we call it - I'll call it broken until we properly fix it. I'm not the RM and I'm only one person. But, I spent way too much time looking at this code and I'm not at all happy with what we're doing right now. - I personally don't feel the tree is stable enough for a GA release right now. We've been making a lot of changes. I think these are changes that we have to make. However, have people tested it? Have we even tried running the new input filtering code anywhere? AFAIK, no. It passes httpd-test (perhaps), but that's about it. Has anyone thought to run it either on icarus or daedalus? And the last time we tried to deploy to icarus, we had to retract it because it segfaulted. I would be much more confident if we were to get real-world feedback on this code for a period of several days. - The reason that I would prefer to see module API changes straightened out sooner rather than later is that with each subsequent release more and more third-parties are adopting httpd-2.0. And, I firmly believe that we should take the time to get right the things we know that are wrong in the module APIs. If you don't care about that, fine. I do. This is a free world. We have a set of constraints that we all abide by here in httpd-land. We can peacefully co-exist even though we hold diametric positions on critical matters. Feel free to release 2.0.37, but I don't think we're ready for a GA release. I'm not interested in releasing alpha releases. I'm interested in releasing GA releases. The only way to do that is to fix the code and test it extensively. -- justin
