Reading emails like this remind me of the days when I really wonder why anyone would ever want to participate in the project... sigh...
david > At 08:30 AM 11/25/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >David Reid wrote: > > [Will recalls Marc Slemco stating:] > > >> > If you are looking at 2.1 being as different from 2.0 as 1.3 and 2.0 are, > >> > then perhaps a branch isn't the best idea. But if you are looking at > >> > having that many differences before 2.0 has even had a chance to stablize, > >> > I think you are asking for trouble and how to manage the CVS repository > >> > would be the least of the worries... > >> > >> Hmm, a nice summary of my own feelings and concerns. :) > >> > > > >And mine as well (and a concern I had since the topic was 1st mentioned/ > >suggested many moons ago). The 2.1 branch makes sens iff the intent > >is to place 2.0 in API and feature "freeze" and work on stabilizing > >and tuning the code, not that "we're bored with 2.0 and want to work > >on the next cool verson and all this crud about keeping 2.0 > >stable and robust is really slowing down my creative juices" ;) > > > >Not that anyone is saying, or has said that. > > Nope. Folks have asked that 2.0 stop being a sandbox for those next cool > features and that we get 2.0 code working. However, folks want to proceed > with the next cool features. Why ask them to quit it? > > Since most of the active committers, (first in terms of applying their own > and others' bug fixes, and secondly still participants in the project) > expressed content with having a separate stable tree and a sandbox for > continued work, and a vote was conducted for a month with not so much > as a -0, I won't be too frustrated when folks start rehashing the decision > for the next year. You may as well also start venting over how poor the > old 1.3 is doing (but don't go fixing it, that would take away all the fun > of griping about it :-) > > Which takes us to the question raised by the three of you. It's Apache. > You scratch Your own itch. If that's maintenance (as Jeff, myself, and > many others including yourselves keep persisting in) then that's cool. > If that itch is new development, such as auth refactoring, async overhaul > or factoring out the filesystem, then that's cool too. > > Participate how you like; that's the point of *this* Apache project. Even > the backseat drivers are welcome here :-) > > Bill > >
