William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 04:48 PM 5/2/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
Personally, I have held off on starting refactors of code, because I do
not want to be detrimental to the ability to make a 2.2 Branch.
I would like to investigate making more parts of httpd async, in
conjunction with the
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
This has somewhat turned into the real question, What are the show
stoppers for a 2.2 GA Branch?
If you believe an issue is a show stopper for a GA Branch, please add it
to the STATUS File.
So to amend your original proposal; on May 13;
* tagging an alpha
At 03:24 AM 5/3/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
This has somewhat turned into the real question, What are the show
stoppers for a 2.2 GA Branch?
If you believe an issue is a show stopper for a GA Branch, please add it
to the STATUS File.
So to amend your original proposal;
- Original Message -
From: Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Branch 2.1.x on May 13
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
This has somewhat turned into the real question, What are the show
stoppers for a 2.2 GA
Why do I suddenly have the I Have A Dream speech flashes? ;-)
- Dmitri.
Paul Querna wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think that most other developers agree that 2.1.x/trunk has enough
features for a 2.2.x GA branch.
I believe 2.1.x is a moving target.
I think it is hard to
--On Friday, April 29, 2005 3:45 PM -0700 Paul Querna
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am proposing the branch date be May 13, 2005.
++1. -- justin
I'm +1 for branching 2.2-alpha... However, there are 2 outstanding
show-stoppers. Do we expect these to be addressed before the branch.
I think so, especially if they require API changes
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Why couldn't we fix those up after the branch? The point would be to
stop making 2.1.x a moving target so that we can fix the showstoppers.
+1 on that. Not on the timing, though: I won't have time for apache
until after Xtech[1], so that's a definite abstension on
--On Monday, May 2, 2005 3:33 PM -0400 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I thought the whole idea about having a 2.1 dev version was to avoid
monkeying around with the API and the problems when we were doing
1.3 and 2.0. Once we branch, it is possible that we'll run into
issues that may
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Monday, May 2, 2005 3:33 PM -0400 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I thought the whole idea about having a 2.1 dev version was to avoid
monkeying around with the API and the problems when we were doing
1.3 and 2.0. Once we branch, it is possible
+1
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, April 29, 2005 4:45:19 PM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think that most other developers agree that 2.1.x/trunk has enough
features for a 2.2.x GA branch.
I believe 2.1.x is a moving target.
I think it is hard to stabilize a moving target.
At 05:45 PM 4/29/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
I think that most other developers agree that 2.1.x/trunk has enough
features for a 2.2.x GA branch.
+1
I believe 2.1.x is a moving target.
+/- 0. I see the tree is fairly stable, has some decent bug fixing
activity, and nothing destabling. To the
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From discussion - I see us branching 2.1.x anyways, but still object
since we will now be maintaining two or three backports for every
bugfix commit to trunk/. Humbly suggest this isn't the conclusion
we reached at AC Las Vegas, and suggest it's still the
Jim Jagielski wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From discussion - I see us branching 2.1.x anyways, but still object
since we will now be maintaining two or three backports for every
bugfix commit to trunk/. Humbly suggest this isn't the conclusion
we reached at AC Las Vegas, and suggest
Jim Jagielski wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From discussion - I see us branching 2.1.x anyways, but still object
since we will now be maintaining two or three backports for every
bugfix commit to trunk/.
If the trees are so in sync that the same patch applies it's trivial
to do the
Sander Striker wrote:
If the trees are so in sync that the same patch applies it's trivial
to do the backports.
The backport issue will still stay FWIW. If not now, it will come
at the time we have 2.0 and 2.2 out there, and trunk is at 2.3-dev.
It's not like we can drop support for 2.0
At 05:26 PM 5/2/2005, Sander Striker wrote:
Bill makes some good points... it seems that branching would simply be
renaming trunk. The good thing is that with svn this is cheap
and easy, but will it really do what we want? Also, the gotta
backport this to yet another branch issue is valid.
No it
At 04:48 PM 5/2/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
Personally, I have held off on starting refactors of code, because I do
not want to be detrimental to the ability to make a 2.2 Branch.
I would like to investigate making more parts of httpd async, in
conjunction with the Event MPM. I would also like to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think that most other developers agree that 2.1.x/trunk has enough
features for a 2.2.x GA branch.
I believe 2.1.x is a moving target.
I think it is hard to stabilize a moving target.
I believe we should always keep trunk open for development.
I
19 matches
Mail list logo
