On May 28, 2015 8:38 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:32 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com
wrote:
I think I would have preferred Jeff's form of the vote, which would
have allowed us to know the potential operating forces on 2.2.x.
We determined from that poll that there were 3 committers who
would fix bugs on 2.2, so that discussion was already done.
That was an informal poll, whereas an official one would probably have
allowed us to count ourselves and maybe see if we can still maintain
2.2 effectively.
The project's definition... no, the ASF definition of effective
participants -is- 3 :)
I've packed it in when code bases no longer had that number of
participants. E.g. the 1.3/2.0 EOL was by unanimous consensus, retiring
mod_aspdotnet was by unanimous consensus. The mod_arm4 code should likely
also be retired, I wouldn't anticipate an objection.
Where 1 or 2 individuals want an effort to persist at the ASF, and cannot
find a third hand, that is a sad outcome, but hasn't happened at httpd that
I recall. It is unlikely to be the case here, either.
Speeking for myself, if the cost of using (hence backporting to) 2.2.x
exceeds significantly the one
(technical/political/educational/whatever-al) of upgrading to 2.4.x,
I'll choose the latter...
ISTM that it's also a question of workforce, not that I doubt about
committers wrt 2.2.x, I just wish I had a better idea with that poll
(3 is nice to know, but so is ?).
Agreed, and that's why I just responded to the poll. Most backports won't
reach that threshold for most of us. Complex patches may be proposed and
die for want of 3 sets of eyeballs. That is ok, too.
Sure people like having their release maintained, for free is even
better,
They like having their new releases for free even more-so. What
inspired you to call out 'free' as in cash-in-lieu-of-beer?
I meant free of time, work, or elbow/finger grease ;)
(: thanks for clarifying.
the investment is done either by the committers (for all
living versions) or the users (upgrading).
No, it's not an either-or proposition. Committers, for those who
aren't in a position to upgrade (and only those who maintain an
interest, e.g. those 3 who responded to Jeff's survey). And the
users who are stuck in an update trajectory, for the time being,
or who have the freedom to upgrade (preferably, their entire host
or container OS).
Well, some (maybe most, but not all!) won't move unless/until they
face a missing security/bug fix in 2.2.x.
Why would they if they don't need a new feature, and why will they in
1/2/3.. years?
Why indeed. Hopefully we offer compelling reasons. I'm much more
concerned to help people avoid provisioning an old crufty version such as
2.2.30 versus adopting 2.4.13 from the get-go. Whatever we can do to help
with that aught to be welcomed by the user community.
Thanks for your thoughts.
