On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > > > Focus your energy on anything you like. > > > > Can't grok whether that's snarky or not... I'll assume not :) > Please assume not :) ASF projects should still remain scratch-your-own-itch(es). Your message certainly had an 'adopt my agenda' tone to it, but I similarly didn't assume this was belligerent :) On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > My point is that if we EOL 2.2 (with some definition of "EOL") > then people on 2.2 (or earlier) will have some *real* incentive > to move off of 2.2 towards 2.4 (or later)... > Define "people". The overwhelming majority of "people" use whatever is distributed with their OS. If your "people" are the distributors, just surveying current and immediately forthcoming distributions, it seems the message got through loud and clear. Basically, we need something to "kick" people off 2.2 > and get them to 2.4. We've always used the 1 year yardstick, and from the graphs and distribution EOL's, 1 year is too soon. At the Tomcat project they generally support 3 major/minor releases in parallel. Here, our support has oscillated between 2 and 3 releases since 2.0.36. A new minor release has usually been the trigger to EOL the 3rd oldest release. In the real-world, we won't hit a point where there is only one major/minor release is wide use, not unless we slow the pace of major/minor releases to once every ten years ... not a goal to aspire to. By stating that 2.2 will ONLY get > security related fixes and no new features or improvements, > and that 2.2 will be EOL by 201X, that will be encouragement. > It should be readily apparent from CHANGES for 2.2 and 2.4 which gets more attention. All of our announcements clarify that 2.4.new is the latest and greatest. If there are three PMC folks who want a bug fixed in 2.2, what is your point in establishing an agenda against that fix? In a BDFL project, that posturing is expected. Clearly there are very few bug fixes that attract developer's attention on 2.2 anymore. A better and perhaps less offensive question might be; how do we, as a project, communicate how legacy the legacy release really is? That, of course, assumes that we "care" one way or another > about moving people to a more up-to-date and performant > httpd, as well as whatever the future holds for httpd. Is there a reason you imply that contributors at this project don't seek this? The only divisions I see on the horizon are gaining consensus on the scope of any radical changes between 2.4.x and httpd-next.
