On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:21 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
so we could focus on the required checks while still allowing
trunk to continue unabated?
-1, until we have votes for a beta/almost GA from trunk, -or- until
someone
offers a breaking patch which is targeted to something later than
2.4/3.0.
That's IMHO - vetos are irrelevant to this topic. If you can point
to a
recent commit as an example of what we shouldn't pick up in 2.4/3.0,
you
could probably shift my opinion about this. My reasoning;
Trunk was split to allow people to make rapid progress without the
overhead
of choosing the backport path and slowing down progress. In fact,
progress
on httpd is mostly at a standstill by anyone other than some
committed folks
happy to work through the STATUS files. The process had chased them
off,
much as Aaron Bannert and others had argued. On the other hand 2.2
is very
dependable and stable as compared to other open source efforts.
So forking too early isn't healthy, and forking too late (your fear)
also
isn't healthy to finally accomplish a release. Let's get to alpha
and then
discuss. (Obviously, if trunk is taken in a strange direction, it's
always
possible to pull the branch later from the same rev as a particular
tag.)
Does this make sense?
Yep. My only fear, as you state, is without some clear consensus that
we want to get a 2.4 out "sometime soon", we will be stuck in that
never-ending loop of polishing the turd. ;)
