Whoops...not enough sleep :) That should read as R-T-C not C-T-R... I also tend to think this should be applied to the 1.3 tree.
david ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 8:36 PM Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS ROADMAP > Given the recent behavior of some I'm actually now in favour of C-T-R for > any stable tree... > > Treat adults as adults until they prove they can't be so treated. > > +1 for C_T_R for stable branches > > david > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Trawick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 2:20 PM > Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS ROADMAP > > > > "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > I think that R-T-C is the most likely way we'll get good reviews of > > > > code moved to the stable tree. > > > > > > Jeff is speaking from his experience with 2.0 development and I would > have to > > > agree with him in this regard. > > > > I believe that our experiences with 2.0 development (and recent 1.3 > > maintenance) are indicative of what is going to happen with > > 2.0-stable, or at least much more so than any experiences from several > > years ago. > > > > Obviously the interpretation of that experience is subject to debate :) > > > > --/-- > > > > Everybody has their own vision and we have to find the greatest > > commonality to decide how to work. Here are some aspects of mine: > > > > . 1.3 maintenance needs to be a bit healthier... more involvement of > > people when somebody wants to fix something... right now it can be > > hard to get anybody to give a shit when you want to fix > > something... > > > > . 2.0-stable maintenance along the lines of 1.3, but I think that > > fixing things in 2.0-stable is much more important than fixing > > things in 1.3.. 2.0-stable maintenance right now is for the > > relatively few who try 2.x before the hoped-for avalanche, and > > fixing their problems is going to prevent a world of hurt later on > > (1.3 clearly works well-enough for almost anybody) > > > > . 2.1... just like what has happened with 2.0 thus far... > > > > This has nothing to do with C-T-R vs. R-T-C; that is just a choice of > > which crude tool can best be used to achieve a goal. > > > > One of the useful properties of R-T-C is that if you don't have enough > > interest to keep a tree maintained in a healthy manner it becomes > > painfully obvious almost immediately. > > > > -- > > Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Born in Roswell... married an alien... > > > >
