On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > 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. ;) >
start cutting alpha releases :-) last timed we tried trunk on www.apache.org it didn't go so well... so... we should do that again.
