Please, let's not repeat the discussion on 0.20 as 1.0 in this thread. I oppose the immortality of the 0.20 branch for the same reasons I opposed it on common-dev. From a technical perspective, nothing has been more destructive to the momentum and focus of this project than the perpetual backporting and development on this branch. Yahoo, Cloudera, and Facebook have their reasons for building fortresses on the sands of 0.20, but Apache has a year of development beyond that. It's a dark, unmapped jungle at the moment, but what you propose will only exacerbate that problem by establishing a fourth settlement on that sad oasis.
I vote no. Apache doesn't need to participate in the ridiculous exercise of porting 0.20 to 0.22. Why not support (and aid) Tom's effort to stabilize trunk? -C On Friday, April 23, 2010, Doug Cutting <[email protected]> wrote: > Allen Wittenauer wrote: > > That 0.20 is not 1.0 quality, no matter how hard people want to believe it is > true. > > > Allen, my question was, "regardless of the naming" should we try to merge all > of the 0.20-based security patches to a branch in Apache's subversion? > > As for the naming, the major release number does not make a claim about > quality or features, but rather about compatibility. 1.0 would presumably be > the lowest quality and least featured release in the 1.x series, but > everything in that series should be API compatible with 1.0. Every release > in the 2.x series might not be compatible with 1.0. Point releases add > features, dot releases add quality. So 1.0.1 would only improve quality, > while 1.1.0 would add features while maintaining compatibility. > > Doug >
