On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:59:46 -0400 Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. > <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > > > Note that the release windows we are discussing have been far longer > > than a month (or I would not have bothered to bring this up), fair? > > For example, 2.0.65 was lingering almost a year. 2.4.5 is now into > > its second month, you offered to RM back in May. > > > > So? > [...] > From all that, the release cycles between 2.2 and 2.4 are NOT > all that much out of whack, although I DO agree that going from 2-4-6 > months is a trend we want to avoid and looking for a release every 4 > months or so seems optimal. And, if you look, that is the timing that > I've been trying to push. Right, but let's just take a look at our official STATUS and how you have treated it in the past year, and how that differed from 2.2... http://markmail.org/search/?q=%22.z+versions+are+Stable%2FGA+releases.%22+2.4.2+list%3Aorg.apache.httpd.cvs+order%3Adate-backward#query:%22.z%20versions%20are%20Stable%2FGA%20releases.%22%202.4.2%20list%3Aorg.apache.httpd.cvs%20order%3Adate-backward+page:1+mid:n6rwwa2jfc2of6to+state:results At what times was the tree 'open to tag' by any RM? You effectively placed a block on potential release activity and held STATUS hostage to your whims for well over 1/2 of the past 12 months, but rarely met a commit date, and often held it hostage with no specific commitment. I think this practice has to stop. The STATUS 2.4.{next} line should never have become a reservation. It is a simple statement of fact (development? tagged? released? abandoned?) That is the practice of yours which has particularly put me off to your 2.4 development efforts, and if you want to collaborate, it would be best to communicate an intent to roll through the dev@ list which you had also done, admirably. And this is probably a better solution than designating a 10 day window or whatnot to achieve an announced tag and roll.
