Jim Jagielski wrote: >Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > >>On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 02:47:13PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: >> >>>credit where it is deserved. I do *not* think we owe the user >>>community a project plan and schedule of deliverables. >>> >>I think we owe it to the other developers to have a project >>plan and a schedule of deliverables. -- justin >> > >Plan: +1 >Schedule: -1 > >I also feel that we have a responsibility to the community, but one >which is based on having a reliable application, rather than one that's >held to a schedule. Even with that being said, Apache runs the real >risk of being irrelevant (sp?) if 2.0 stays in the constant "beta" >phase... if this is the case, then "dropping" 1.3 as we have is >a Bad Idea. We can't say to the Apache community "wait for 2.0 and >it'll be done when it's done, but don't expect anything new in 1.3". >The world doesn't stand still. > >I know it sounds like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth here :) >
No, you're actually making a lot of sense. :-) Given finite development resources, either the plan or the schedule can be carved in stone--but not both. Of the two, I strongly agree that the plan is the one that needs to be kept invariant. My rationale is that the httpd is as much a platform as it is a product. People are building 3rd-party modules, value-added httpd products, and other applications on top of the httpd core, and their development work may be significantly impacted by changes to the httpd architecture or APIs. Thus I view the finalization of the APIs and design changes (based on what we've communicated in STATUS) as the most important next step, followed by getting the 2.0 GA released. --Brian