On 20/01/2017 07:07, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Noel Butler <noel.but...@ausics.net> wrote: > On 20/01/2017 05:54, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > posts, I don't think you will find a single post where I suggested > that there is an issue with the frequency of releases, but please > feel free. > I believe that was me :) > > You've put restated the argument again this month that if we > don't enhance and add features, we will lose user share to > another web server. > Frequent releases set off alarms in system admins minds, frequent releases > give the view of unstable/unreliable software, and that is the largest cause > of movement to an alternative.
I don't believe anyone has that opinion of nghttp2.
I think Tatsuhiro's release model for nghttp2 has been brilliant.
Monthly, there are new features (1.next.0). If there are regressions
between 1.next.0 releases, these are 1.current.1, 1.current.2 and
so on.
If the code works, he ships it. I'm impressed, and don't have any
negative perception that getting bug fixes out very quickly says
anything negative about nghttp2.
I'm sure you'll find those who disagree with it too, as a clear example,
most seasoned admins would be aware of dovecots atrocious early track
record, releases were sub monthly, at times, even weekly, people stopped
upgrading because it was time consuming and "sick of it", there were
admins two years or more behind, and at some pretty big providers too,
phpmyadmin was worse, with at times bi-weekly releases, Marc had myriad
of complaints, and eventually back off to updating ever couple months or
so unless critical exploit. Thats just two mainstream examples of how
dangerous it can be for release often mentality it might seem cool for
developers, but no so much for the very people those devs rely upon for
their software to remain relevant.
--
Kind Regard,
Noel Butler
This Email, including any attachments, may contain legally
privileged
information, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright
protected under international law. You may not disseminate, discuss, or
reveal, any part, to anyone, without the authors express written
authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments,
immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not
waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message. Only
PDF [1] and ODF [2] documents accepted, please do not send proprietary
formatted documents
Links:
------
[1] http://www.adobe.com/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
