At 01:25 PM 11/23/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote: >On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> CURRENT RELEASE NOTES: >> >> + * This branch is operating under R-T-C guidelines. > >Huh? No way. We're all adults here. If someone commits something >that you are uncomfortable with, bring it up on the list. There's >no reason for any ASF project to be R-T-C, IMHO. Our voting >rules are sufficient enough to protect against bogus commits to >stable or "maintenance" trees.
One 'advantage' of R-T-C is eliminating the 'last minute breakage' of trees as we approach releases. I understand that most httpd'ers haven't operated under R-T-C for a very long time, we enjoy treating cvs as a sandbox for rapid development. I think Jeff's original appeal for some known, stable branch (he actually asked for 2.0.43.xxx in perpetutity) was that the release should not be the sandbox for new ideas. But I was only interpreting other's comments, committers, how do you feel about this policy? Should we operate C-T-R on 2_0_BRANCH? Aaron, if you like, put this to a vote in 2_0_BRANCH'es STATUS. + * The 'modules/experimental' tree will evaporate soon. Anything >> + in the development branch should be located under it's eventual >> + home (such as modules/cache/.) > >There's no reason to remove this from the 2.0 releases. They are experimental >not matter way, and if someone grabs a 2.0 tarball and wants to start >hacking on experimental stuff, all the better! I'm taking this from the vote. Again, if you want to phrase this very specific issue as a vote (in 2_0_BRANCH'es STATUS) I sure won't object.
