On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 12:48, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 11:34 AM 10/17/2002, Jeff Stuart wrote: > >On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 12:10, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> APACHE 2.x ROADMAP > >> ================== > >> Last modified at [$Date: 2002/10/01 19:13:06 $] > >[...rest of the roadmap deleted...] > > > >If I may make 3 suggestions. > > > >1) If we want to match the kernel/perl versioning system, then make 2.2 > >the stable version and make 2.3 the devel version and just SKIP 2.1. :) > > Nope... for this reason. 2.0 was never 'stable' by this new definition. So we > can consider that 2.0 was a development branch for it's entire life. Not that > it was bad code, but we changed things many times. Now 2.1 we state that > the odds never change. Actually matches 1.3 well (it no longer changes and > hasn't since 1.3.14. Talk about a great track record :-) > > This is not linux/perl, in that we don't have the same even/odds. But it's > pretty nice that when we start 3.0, it too will be development, and when we > are ready, we fall nicely into the 3.1/3.2 pattern all over again. > > >2) THROW CVS out and switch over to using Subversion as the SCM for > >Apache. Tags/branches are EASY to do! :) Besides, it USES apache 2.0 > >for the remote repository access. What better way to promote both > >programs? :) > > That's a seperate topic :-) But a good point. Are we anywhere near ready? > If we debate this, please pull out this point as subject: "SVN already?" > > >3) Possibly add in the roadmap something about using -pr and -rc > >versions for testing before release. Especially on the stable branches. > > Absolutely. I sort of called that out by suggesting the _worktag (for use > by everyone,) then the_RC# (only to be tweaked by the RM.) > > I could say more, but do you want to offer an edit instead? > > Bill
Well... Umm... It's not needed. LOL... #1 wasn't all that "important" to me. It was "if we want to follow..." type thing. :) #2 of course is as you point out a seperate discussion. #3 Hmm... I'm not sure if that even belongs in the roadmap now that I think about it. That's more just the guidelines for the RM. More I think about it... that's a guideline/suggestion for the RM. -- Jeff Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
