> After a million messages on related topics, I'm not sure that any two > developers agree on all of the following topics: > > . how much to consider the needs of users relative to desires of > developers > > . how hard to try not to break binary compatibility > > . how much to use 2.0 HEAD as a sandbox for new features > > . whether or not to start 2.1 now for auth changes > > Meanwhile, a number of the 2.0 users which have dared poke their heads > into our mailing list point out through their comments that we have a > PR problem (regardless of whether or not you agree technically on > their particular concerns).
Worth reading... http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2882203,00.html I am generally in favor of maintaining a binary compatible/stable 2.0 cvs repository. I think this may help the third party module authors to finally do the work to get their modules running on Apache 2.0, which should help improve the 2.0 adoption rate. What we call that repository is not particularly important to me, though the name we choose may have PR implications which we should be sensitive to. My suggestion is we freeze 2.0 MMN major bumps (unless there is a really, -really-, REALLY compelling reason to do a bump) and start a new development tree for 2.1. Lets set some goals for what we (the developers and the user community) want to see in 2.1 and work toward those goals (ie, finish and agree on the ROADMAP we've already started). Bill
