As someone who's done most of the 2.4 releases, my goal has always been to ensure that whatever we release has as much trunk-goodness as possible. The more deviation there is between trunk and 2.4 the worse it is, imo, because it makes 2.4 less appealing.
We are now currently using trunk pretty much as a clearing center for 2.4.x code and not so much as a place for "new" development (except for some things), and so it makes little sense to have trunk and 2.4 deviate much. At least, that's my PoV. On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <drugg...@primary.net> wrote: > On 7/10/2013 7:13 AM, Eric Covener wrote: >> So my concern with the proposal -- are there really wiling/able RM's >> waiting in the wings in these periods? If they're there -- are they >> afraid of stepping on an RM's toes, or of drawing a line in the sane >> for the half-approved backports? >> >> (I have personally never RM'ed. To me it's intimidating and unknown >> and with a log of competing work it's hard to step up and tackle. >> Maybe we should make it make a condition of PMC membership at least >> once per decade?) > > Sure, I can do this if it's a time thing. The doc [1] seems straight > forward enough and I can make the time to roll a release (though I > wouldn't mind a practice swing or two first). The guts of the procedure > itself seems like it could easily be scripted. > > To get back on the topic, I don't see a lot of firm "no, you can't > release now because I'm not done working" messages. My perception is > that it boils down to a matter of time (or lack thereof) for the RM's. > There also isn't a guideline set forth that states exactly when to > release so that all too familiar > this-product-has-to-ship-on-July-8th-or-our-company-is-sunk pressure > that "motivates" devs isn't quite there. > > [1] http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html#how-to-do-a-release > > -- > Daniel Ruggeri >
