I should have read this (shorter) reply first :)
Le 12/09/2018 à 03:30, William A Rowe Jr a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018, 13:35 Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com
<mailto:j...@jagunet.com>> wrote:
And finally, we have some things in trunk that will likely
need to be majorly fixed or else scrapped.
Please catalog these things.
The reason that even-odds minor versions exist is to clean up trunk
for a GA release. Otherwise we would have stayed with the 2.0.x
release model.
RTC -> CTR between trunk n.odd releases and branched n.even GA
releases was a carefully choregraphed compromise between PMC members
who wanted a dynamic project and PMC members who wanted stability.
Hijacking the project to follow only one of those models is to
disenfranchise the other side of the community, which is a pretty
abrupt slap at ASF values.
You are right that what is on trunk needs the consideration of alpha
and beta releases to meet with our collective approval, and is not at
this time ready for GA.
That's my point.
Since every change has passed through trunk and every committer has
reviewed their patches against their own build of trunk, it's
laughable to suggest that trunk is 'unstable'.
2 examples from me:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59636.
I suspect that what have been committed by me is incomplete. And it is
still un-fixed (by me)
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44221
I though my patches was right. It was discussed and controversial
(change of default was not expected on a stable branch, but maybe could
on a new one?)
This has remained as-is for almost 4 years now.
Should be reworked (to keep the default behavior), or well documented
(to avoid surprise when s.o. upgrades) or axed (if not correctly done
and still unfixed)
But It should not go as-is, IMHO, in a new release.
So, I wouldn't say 'unstable', but at least in some cases, 'not as good
as it deserve'.
For someone who strongly agrees merit never expires to suggest
discarding the work of all committers whose works were 'to be
included' in 2.5 flies in the face of all founding principals I'm
aware of.
Please reconsider your proposal in light of this simple objection out
of respect for your fellow committers.
CJ
