I guess I just didn't read that much in to it. I just want
to see us move forward without getting bogged down in
misinterpreted emails and already acknowledged mistakes,
and to do that I'm trying to stay objective (eg. a Vote).
To me this looks like the set of concerns:
1) we want 2.0 maintenance
2) we want 2.1 development
3) we want parallel development of each
4) a bad name for a combined 2.0+2.1 CVS module is "httpd-2.0"
5) having separate CVS modules means we lose future history
6) creating a brand new CVS module means we lose past history
(does this cover everyone's concerns?)
Therefore I'm proposing that we just keep the "httpd-2.0" CVS
module we have for a little longer, eventually on some
well-in-advance forewarned flag day we rename it to something
more generic, like just "httpd" and then keep a readonly
artifact of the old "httpd-2.0" CVS module around for posterity.
-aaron
On Monday, November 25, 2002, at 04:39 PM, David Reid wrote:
Language can be a terrible thing...
If Jim feels like this then we should all be pausing for thought.
Aaron, calling for a vote will not accomplish anything with feelings
having
been so inflamed.
In fact there seems to have been a rash of this sort of "outburst" and
ensuing chaos recently. One of the catchphrases at the 'Con among a
group of
us became "Can't we all just get along..." - maybe it's also valid
here?
david
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jim 2002/11/25 12:54:59
Modified: . Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH STATUS
Log:
It appears that I am "unworthy" to have an opinion...
On what grounds? I would assume that if you aren't "worthy"
then neither am I, so I would need to participate in a similar
exorcism of opinions... I assumed all committers were "worthy".
--
Paul J. Reder
-----------------------------------------------------------
"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination
of
each
citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound
to do
his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure."
-- Albert Einstein
