I still believe that everything that is currently in ROADMAP can and should be implemented in 2.0.
Ryan ---------------------------------------------- Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 645 Howard St. [EMAIL PROTECTED] San Francisco, CA > -----Original Message----- > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 10:37 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Auth checker - long term goal.. > > At 12:07 PM 7/10/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 09:39:29AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > > I'm sorry, but that is completely bogus. If the API needs to change > to > > > make things better, then change the API. Stop trying to open a new > dev > > > branch when the current one is still moving forward quickly. We have > > > this discussion every few weeks now, and every few weeks the 2.1 repo > > > gets shot down, because these changes belong in 2.0. > > > >I don't recall any strong opinions on this other than from you and > >OtherBill. > > > >My feeling is somewhere between. We shouldn't rush off and branch 2.1 if > >we don't have any specific goals to solve, nor should we be forcing major > >changes upon our 2.0 users. The point of inflection comes when someone > >produces a patch for 2.0 that we aren't quite ready to swallow. As soon > >as that happens we have a perfect excuse for a branch. > > The list is in ROADMAP. Every item there was effectively vetoed for the > current development tree as too radical an overhaul. Each was pointed to > "the next version, we are {too close to|already for|already have the ga} > release". > Improve the ROADMAP. Spell out what 2.1/3.0 will offer. > > Things like needing to track r->openfile instead of r->filename, needing > to > follow a new convention to write auth modules {splitting authn/authz into > smaller useful chunks, but with no back-compat}, proving pushback as a > more effective authoring and performance filtering model (that accomodates > both input and output filters in the same schema), async cross-threaded > requests, and so forth. > > >Soooo.... -1 for 2.1 until we have such a patch. > > I agree we aren't ready for 2.1 until 2.0 is stable and relatively bug > free. > I thought someone a year and a half ago actually threw one out there > for some of the auth, but I too want the group to stay focused on making > 2.0 a serious threat to 1.3 and other servers. Without breaking existing > 3rd party modules beyond rebuilding, and occasional API changes, that > are absolutely required. API changes that break 3rd party 2.0 modules, > just "because it's better|cooler|faster", are bogus now that we are GA. > > Bill >
