>>> On 4/15/2008 at 5:49 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Jagielski wrote: >> I think what Paul is suggesting (he will for sure correct me >> if I'm wrong) is that it's better to at least have some semblance >> of a schedule than not, and by baselining every X months for a release, >> it provides us, as volunteers, to better allocate time. It does >> not mean, imo, that we rush out packages that aren't ready or >> release something just because "we have a schedule to keep"... >> we all have day jobs that force that on us, and we don't want >> that kind of pressure here as well. >> >> However, looking over things, I think that we have enough active >> activity such that a ~3month "cycle" might be workable... > > IOW, if we declare a 2 month cycle, we end up with releases every > three months ;-)
I believe that it would benefit the project to do releases a little more frequently than we have in the past, I would just rather see the project release because a release is warranted. Not because a schedule dictates that we do it. I guess I have always liked the fact that Apache does things because it is the right thing to do, not because there is some artificial requirement. If Paul wants to release every two months, more power to him and to the project. Just do it, we shouldn't have to take a vote or change any of our existing written or unwritten policies. Maybe the real problem is that the Apache httpd project has lost some of the passion that it used to have. I think that is what Roy was saying in the Keynote slides that Paul forwarded to the list. Maybe the problem is that we have all become a little too conservative when it comes to releases because we have all realized just how much people depend on this little piece of software. However that conservative attitude only applies to the past, it shouldn't apply to the future. IOW, we may be required to be conservative when it comes to 1.3.x, 2.0.x or 2.2.x, but the same level of conservatism shouldn't apply to 2.4 or 3.0. It's been 3 1/2 years since we started the last major release cycle of the httpd server and 2 1/2 years since the last major release of the web server. That's longer than many if not most commercial products. So what, if some of the 2.3 features are not fully baked or if some things may not work quite right. Why should that stop the project from releasing something anyway, whatever that something might be. If it is adopted and accepted, then great. If it falls on its face then we know what not to do the next time. I know, I am probably preaching to the choir and it may even sound like I am arguing both sides of the subject line above. But if we want to get the passion back in the project, then it might be time for the project to take some more risks. Release because it is the right thing to do. Brad
