Fellow PMC folk...
I think everyone on this list can agree that the pace of releases has
slowed to a crawl; we are 6+ mos between releases of our active/stable
2.4 series, which has little if any adoption, and are equally lethargic
about the actually stable-and-adopted 2.2 releases. This is a
According to STATUS:
2.4.5 : In development. Jim proposes a release ~July 4, 2013
and offers to RM.
2.4.4 : Tagged on February 18, 2013. Released Feb 25, 2013
2.4.3 : Tagged on August 17, 2012. Released Aug 18, 2012
2.4.2 : Tagged on April 5, 2012. Released
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:14:16 -0400
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
According to STATUS:
2.4.5 : In development. Jim proposes a release ~July 4, 2013
and offers to RM.
2.4.4 : Tagged on February 18, 2013. Released Feb 25, 2013
2.4.3 : Tagged on August
On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
So my proposal to be presented shortly as a vote would be to abandon the
trunk into a sandbox to be mined for good changes, once 30 days after a
vote is concluded without a release, and to revert the 2.4.x trunk to
On 10/07/2013 19:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
So my proposal to be presented shortly as a vote would be to abandon the
trunk into a sandbox to be mined for good changes, once 30 days after a
vote is concluded
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:43:58 -0400
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
So my proposal to be presented shortly as a vote would be to
abandon the trunk into a sandbox to be mined for good changes, once
30 days
On Jul 10, 2013, at 11:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
So reverting branches/2.4.x/ to trunk is my first suggestion to make
this easier, and it seems that the list would like to make things a
bit easier on committers and contributors. Reverting to CTR on 2.4.x
would
On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
What does the question of how long can a prospective RM hold that baton
before it becomes an excessive period of time (being the act of one
committer, whether that is you or I or another, which prevents others
from
On Wednesday 10 July 2013, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
In any case, I *am* concerned that w seem to have quite a bit of
difficulty in getting 3 +1s a lot of the time and that the
backport process from trunk to 2.4 is becoming more and more
painful.
All good points... IMO, if people consider themselves a
2.4 developer, their *primary* repo to be working on MUST
be trunk... all their work and *testing* must be on that
codebase. Yes, trunk exists for sandbox type of work,
but it also is the ONLY way that code gets backported to
2.4, so at
WRT 2.5/2.6, I very much hope that it will not take as long as the
2.2-2.4 cycle. I am pretty sure that we cannot reasonably support
SPDY/HTTPbis/HTTP2.0 in 2.4, so we will need a 2.6 in the forseeable
future.
I think as big/disruptive as that will be, and as unlikely as a
meaningful release
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:20:22 +0200
Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
On Wednesday 10 July 2013, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
What I am asking, is whether that trunk is a sandbox to hack in, or
whether is is approaching a releasable state? I'm asking, whether
trunk is a worthwhile
On 10 Jul 2013, at 8:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Fellow PMC folk...
I think everyone on this list can agree that the pace of releases has
slowed to a crawl; we are 6+ mos between releases of our active/stable
2.4 series, which has little if any adoption, and are
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:30:30 +0200
Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Can you explain the current rush to release trunk a mere 18 months
after we've released v2.4? I don't see the urgency at all.
Graham, thank you for reiterating my point :) /trunk/ is simply
premature and an
14 matches
Mail list logo
