Agreed. I'm swamped with stuff right now. Hopefully will have time this weekend. But, I'd also prefer to let some of these ideas kick around in my head for a few days. These are fairly fundamental changes in how we work - a few days to ponder is fair, I think.Are we ready for this vote? I know I'm not. I'm still going through a pile of mail on this subject (as I'm sure others are aswell). Let's not (try to) push this through in a few days.Yes I know this is going on a lot longer than a few days or even a few weeks, but still. Now there is discussion, let's not smother that with a vote.
Could we please add OtherBill's ROADMAP to CVS so we can collaborate on the precise wording (don't call it roadmap - how about VERSIONING)? And, that way, we all agree what the current wording is. Oooooh, OtherBill already did that. Cool. But, I still say that it should be separated from the long-term task items...
I'd prefer that we do a up/down vote on the version rules. Then, we can determine how far we are from creating a stable release. I'd rather not mix the two. But, agree upon the rules first.
I agree that I think we could have an APR 1.0/httpd 2.1 in a month. We're close. How close? I'm not sure. Depending if we can light a fire under our butts to nail the versioning implementation of APR and separate the build system of apr and apr-util (Roy mumbled about the fact that he could do this easily).
The one main suggestion I have to OtherBill's rules is that the stable release tree of httpd should be under RTC not CTR. This ensures deliberation on our parts for integrating items into the stable tree.
Off to write some papers for a bit... -- justin
