Oops, did I forget to reply to the list? Sorry. On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Stefan de Konink <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > > Michael Schurter wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Stefan de Konink <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Eric Drechsel wrote: >>>> >>>> Are there plans for a stable series soon? >>> >>> What do you think this is ;) >> >> Considering its pre-1.0 and the configuration format changes nearly >> every release, I *really* hope this isn't what Cherokee calls stable. > > I still cannot believe people are focused on numbers; the only thing I trust > is my *own* benchmark. If it can do everything I need for production than it > is stable, not a moment earlier. My guess is that Alvaro understands that as > long there is this big list of feature requests and 'problems' people > report, it is not the time to talk about 1.0 as magical number that everyone > thinks it is stable. Stable would be bug count 0; no segmentation faults > ever; everything gracefully handled; error reporting to the user if by > misconfiguration some requests do not end up where the are supposed to, but > still starting; and several paying customers that tell you in your face, > that they don't need your help anymore because everything works out of the > box. In my opinion Apache is then on 0.2. > > >> I'm basically waiting on the sidelines testing it a bit until it >> reaches what I would consider a stable release (config file stability, >> only security patches applied, etc). > > You are complaining about something that is gracefully handled. Even > announced on the devel mailinglist when it changes in SVN. Never the less, > you are not supposed to edit the config by hand ever. So the only thing you > could complain about is that the configuration file version is not written > in the configuration file, and that it is not automatically converted. If it > really annoys you file a request for enhancement on the matter; I could > imagine 'make install' looks at your version and sees if it is compatible or > not with what you just have installed. And *suggest* the command to execute > to migrate. > > >> I'm not trying to be negative or troll. I'm really excited about >> Cherokee! However, I don't want to have to upgrade my production web >> server and migrate its configuration file every few weeks. > > I wish there were releases once every weeks, and I guess that between every > release that were done it was really required to do something. I have setup > probably the biggest publicly known Cherokee deployments now, and > complaining about the config file was not the worst stability thing I could > imagine. > > > Stefan
As someone who used django-trunk for ages before they released "1.0", I assure you that magic number holds little meaning for me. :-) I guess I'm spoiled by Debian's release philosophy. It'd be nice to have a stable release (1.0 or whatever) that only received security updates and fixes for critical bugs that cause things like data loss. I don't think I represented my desires very well before, sorry. Cherokee actually has had all the features I care about for a while, which is exactly why I wish there was a stable branch. I don't really care about a lot of the new features and only want to update when there's a problem (security or critical bug). I don't blame Cherokee for not having that sort of stable branch yet, there's still a lot Alvaro and others want to accomplish. All I'm saying is that Cherokee is definitely not at a point I would consider "stable." YMMV ;-) _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
