Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Joe Schaefer wrote: > > > > Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I believe it was a mistake to allow two different > > > codebases to share the same name. > > > > I'm not convinced that "having two codebases" is > > necessarily a mistake. > > it's not the multiple codebases that's the issue; it's > that they both had the same name and both continued > active development. > > as a counterexample, both httpd 1.3 and 2.0 were in > concurrent active development for a long time. 1.3 > development slowed down, and when 2.0 was finally > released, 1.3 went into a sort of maintenance mode -- > meaning that bugfixes and minor backported features > can show up in it, but nothing that doesn't also > appear in 2.0 at the same time.
AIUI, Sun's code contribution (that resulted in the tomcat 3.x series) interrupted prior tomcat development at the asf. That initital work was eventually resumed and became Catalina -> tomcat 4. httpd started with the NCSA code and worked from there. I don't think the situations are similar enough to warrant a straightforward comparison. In theory, perl development has multiple concurrent release branches- the 5.5, 5.6, and 5.8 lines are (somewhat) independently maintained (much of the community friction around tomcat's 3.3/4.0 reminds me of perl 5.5/5.6 circa April 2000). Although the current release is 5.8.0, the next scheduled release was supposed to be 5.6.2. It's not likely to happen because there isn't much mindshare left for maintaining/improving the 5.6.x line. Most perl developers are busy working on 5.8, 5.9 or parrot. -- Joe Schaefer
