On Tuesday 20 September 2005 22:01, Paul Querna wrote: > Mads Toftum wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 09:37:58PM +0100, Nick Kew wrote: > >> I agree about both of those. And I'd say the same even more strongly > >> for mod_dbd, simply because it (or whatever it becomes when updated in > >> the light of real-life experience) should become the basis of a new > >> generation of applications. If it's there, it'll start to permeate the > >> Usual Suspects like mod_perl. If not, we'll still have the old > >> situation of Perl, Python, PHP, Tcl, Authentication, Logging etc each > >> maintaining its own separate database connections, and having to > >> reinvent the connection pooling wheel if they want to if they want to > >> improve scalability. > > > > big +1 - let's not toss all the cool new features before the release and > > get into the same situation as 1.3 -> 2.0 having trouble convincing > > people that it was worth the upgrade.
Yep. > So, lets change the VERSIONING file/policy. Experimental Modules will > be included in the stable branch. Majority Agree? +1, qualified by: Let's *prune* /experimental/ actively. Any module that's attracting bug reports/trouble that aren't getting fixed goes out. Modules that are getting used and properly maintained get promoted. -- Nick Kew
