Re: Measurement - Jeff's metric [was: [VOTE] Simplified 2.2.x EOL Decision]
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.
Re: Ad-hominem [was: [VOTE] Simplified 2.2.x EOL Decision]
On 28/05/2015 17:59, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote: On 28/05/2015 14:48, William A Rowe Jr wrote: Enough of this ad-hominem BS... [...] You've lost the argument and lost respect, you have demonstrated that by this pathetic and childish response. Just because others have a different opinion to you, does NOT make them a troll William, nor does warrant your bordering on bullying immature response, when you grow up and become an adult again, I'll take your concerns seriously. Noel, Frankly, I don't care whether you take my concerns seriously or not, that is irrelevant. If you have a vote, please vote [changed subject, your reply didn't belong on a vote thread without casting a vote - find the top-post.] I and all PMC members will respect your vote, and each of our peers' votes. Indeed, if you are continuing to chiding me and other committers for not doing what you would have us do, you are indeed a troll. If you are asking whether or not you can focus your efforts on 2.4, nobody has been blocking you from doing so, exclusively. If you are imposing your direction upon fellow committers, and then mocking them for their interests other than your own, than you sir, really, truly are the troll. But if that is not what you or others meant to imply, of course I would retract that unjustified characterization! Yours sincerely, Bill like I said previously William, when you grow back up and can act like an adult, you can then and only then email me directly and we can continue this debate, until such time, save your breath, because I have no time for immature childish brats.
Re: [VOTE] Simplified 2.2.x EOL Decision
On May 28, 2015 5:31 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Why just 2 options and why *these* 2? The VOTE is worthless and obviously designed to stop discussion. I am not voting. By all means then, don't. To answer your question, these are the only two directions the project has taken over the last 15 years, as I documented this afternoon. Counterexamples would be welcome. This conversation reoccurs consistently with the same two opposing agendas; 1. Prevent committers from burning cycles on old branches, vs. 2. Support old branches while they are widely deployed. The many threads you can read in our archives follow the same pattern each time. In general, Jeff's much more diplomatic answer becomes the consensus, and the project moves on. To answer your more detailed question; On May 28, 2015, at 12:44 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: Choose one; [ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to that date This 12 month window seems to have universal consensus from the email archives, once a consensus is reached. Other numbers are often mentioned, and it always boils back down to a year. [ ] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal in Nov, '15. This too is the typical window for revisiting cold threads (actually, more like 6-18/mos, so I picked the short end of that range). Your particular post was a month after the question was asked and answered and (notably) not contradicted. If there was disagreement there was a perfectly valid thread to resume and debate the particulars of either a prompt EOL or a longer window of time. Your top-post clearly advocated for the first choice, but perhaps was incomplete? I am very receptive to the details you left out of that top post, that would have offered us a third-way that none of us expected, if only you had the free cycles the other morning to flesh out that unique proposal. Sincerely, please suggest something we haven't considered before, otherwise this is the same old same old again.
Re: [VOTE] Simplified 2.2.x EOL Decision
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:44 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: Choose one; [ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to that date [X] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal in Nov, '15. 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. Sure people like having their release maintained, for free is even better, the investment is done either by the committers (for all living versions) or the users (upgrading). So let's see the overall effort in the next six months...
Re: [VOTE] Simplified 2.2.x EOL Decision
On 28/05/2015 14:48, William A Rowe Jr wrote: Enough of this ad-hominem BS... this is in fact a majority rule decision (it is a vote not on code but on procedure), and is binding on the project as a whole. I don't want to discuss this again for six months and I'm not keen on the smug little trolls telling me what I should and should not be working on at a project that I participate at. You've lost the argument and lost respect, you have demonstrated that by this pathetic and childish response. Just because others have a different opinion to you, does NOT make them a troll William, nor does warrant your bordering on bullying immature response, when you grow up and become an adult again, I'll take your concerns seriously.
Ad-hominem [was: [VOTE] Simplified 2.2.x EOL Decision]
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote: On 28/05/2015 14:48, William A Rowe Jr wrote: Enough of this ad-hominem BS... [...] You've lost the argument and lost respect, you have demonstrated that by this pathetic and childish response. Just because others have a different opinion to you, does NOT make them a troll William, nor does warrant your bordering on bullying immature response, when you grow up and become an adult again, I'll take your concerns seriously. Noel, Frankly, I don't care whether you take my concerns seriously or not, that is irrelevant. If you have a vote, please vote [changed subject, your reply didn't belong on a vote thread without casting a vote - find the top-post.] I and all PMC members will respect your vote, and each of our peers' votes. Indeed, if you are continuing to chiding me and other committers for not doing what you would have us do, you are indeed a troll. If you are asking whether or not you can focus your efforts on 2.4, nobody has been blocking you from doing so, exclusively. If you are imposing your direction upon fellow committers, and then mocking them for their interests other than your own, than you sir, really, truly are the troll. But if that is not what you or others meant to imply, of course I would retract that unjustified characterization! Yours sincerely, Bill
Measurement - Jeff's metric [was: [VOTE] Simplified 2.2.x EOL Decision]
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. Sadly this was ignored by Noel deciding to 'pile on'. I really hope nobody piles on to anything other than their own interests in contributing to this project. That should be devoid of persons and personalities. 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? 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).
Re: [VOTE] Simplified 2.2.x EOL Decision
Why just 2 options and why *these* 2? The VOTE is worthless and obviously designed to stop discussion. I am not voting. On May 28, 2015, at 12:44 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: Choose one; [ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to that date [ ] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal in Nov, '15.
Re: Measurement - Jeff's metric [was: [VOTE] Simplified 2.2.x EOL Decision]
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. 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 ?). 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 ;) 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?
Re: [VOTE] Simplified 2.2.x EOL Decision
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: Choose one; [ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to that date [X] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal in Nov, '15. Enough of this ad-hominem BS... this is in fact a majority rule decision (it is a vote not on code but on procedure), and is binding on the project as a whole. I don't want to discuss this again for six months and I'm not keen on the smug little trolls telling me what I should and should not be working on at a project that I participate at.
[VOTE] Simplified 2.2.x EOL Decision
Choose one; [ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to that date [ ] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal in Nov, '15.
Re: [VOTE] Simplified 2.2.x EOL Decision
Le 28/05/2015 06:44, William A Rowe Jr a écrit : Choose one; [ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to that date [X] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal in Nov, '15.
Re: [VOTE] Simplified 2.2.x EOL Decision
On 5/27/2015 9:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: Choose one; [ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to that date [X] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal in Nov, '15.
