Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think the only concern that anyone is stating > is one that the 2.0 tree will remain in the state that it is > and that only the 2.1 tree will see development. Certainly > that's a valid concern for anyone to have, developer or user.
Personally I hope the 2.0 tree remains in approximately the state it is in now, with only definite fixes applied and no playing, cleanups, tuning, whatever. This is all about minimizing the time required to have a stable tree and safe releases that we can point users to when we think we've fixed their problem and expect them to fearlessly upgrade to. If someone is an Apache developer and wants to help out with the stable tree but doesn't want to spend a lot of time on it, my definition of stable fits fine. If someone is an Apache user and may need to upgrade (security fix, fix for something that affects their site) but doesn't want any surprises, my definition of stable fits fine. Developers or users that want more excitement would be forced to use 2.1. (And to be honest, I certainly want to spend most of my time with 2.1 once we get the PRs under control.) With a more volatile stable tree, some people (such as myself) will find that involvement in 2.0-stable is not worth the trouble since keeping up with it requires more time than they can spend. But on the other hand, having a not-so-boring stable tree just might be such an incentive that people will come out of the woodwork and forgo doing cool stuff in the 2.1 tree so they can spend their time reviewing and testing patches that come at rates they cannot control (and not knowing whether the review is superfluous or not), and perhaps occasionally fixing a real live user's bug themselves. We don't have enough of that now and more of it sure would be appreciated. -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Born in Roswell... married an alien...
