Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS ROADMAP

[Aaron Bannert]

On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 11:51 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

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.

It is up to the release manager to decide what goes in to their
own release. If they want to take something that was just committed,
then that's their choice. R-T-C may improve that, but only as
a side-effect of a more global slowing down of commits.

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.

+1

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.

Let's discuss this a little more, I'm curious what others think. Is
there really a problem now with people committing things that shouldn't
be committed? Take the 1.3 branch for example.

Lets put this another way. Why would we want to stop anyone from volunteering
wherever they wanted?

  +    * 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.

Again, let's discuss this a little more before we jump to vote. Does anyone
really see a reason to remove this? I'm just thinking that they are marked
very explicitly as "experimental", and so by having them there we're not
hurting anything. OTOH, if they are there, maybe it'll give those new
ideas a little visibility in to what we have coming down the pipe, and
maybe encourage some other contributions.

-aaron