At 11:34 AM 10/17/2002, Jeff Stuart wrote: >On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 12:10, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> APACHE 2.x ROADMAP >> ================== >> Last modified at [$Date: 2002/10/01 19:13:06 $] >[...rest of the roadmap deleted...] > >If I may make 3 suggestions. > >1) If we want to match the kernel/perl versioning system, then make 2.2 >the stable version and make 2.3 the devel version and just SKIP 2.1. :)
Nope... for this reason. 2.0 was never 'stable' by this new definition. So we can consider that 2.0 was a development branch for it's entire life. Not that it was bad code, but we changed things many times. Now 2.1 we state that the odds never change. Actually matches 1.3 well (it no longer changes and hasn't since 1.3.14. Talk about a great track record :-) This is not linux/perl, in that we don't have the same even/odds. But it's pretty nice that when we start 3.0, it too will be development, and when we are ready, we fall nicely into the 3.1/3.2 pattern all over again. >2) THROW CVS out and switch over to using Subversion as the SCM for >Apache. Tags/branches are EASY to do! :) Besides, it USES apache 2.0 >for the remote repository access. What better way to promote both >programs? :) That's a seperate topic :-) But a good point. Are we anywhere near ready? If we debate this, please pull out this point as subject: "SVN already?" >3) Possibly add in the roadmap something about using -pr and -rc >versions for testing before release. Especially on the stable branches. Absolutely. I sort of called that out by suggesting the _worktag (for use by everyone,) then the_RC# (only to be tweaked by the RM.) I could say more, but do you want to offer an edit instead? Bill
