What he said [erm, I meant] ... no you are always welcome to put bug fixes into the
code regardless of the 'freeze' status. I mean, and meant, to propose we freeze any
new feature patches. I'll absolutely wait for dirk to re-sync ab to his tree.
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 1:46 AM
> On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:12:10PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > I know Roy's model changes things a bit, and we can always go back
> > and tag the state of the tree as of midnight tonight, but...
> >
> > can we please freeze development now excepting fixes to absolutely broken stuff?
>
> -1. If you want to freeze the tree, tag it and then do your work on
> the branch created by that tag. It is completely ridiculous to ask people
> to freeze a tree when it doesn't even compile on half a dozen platforms.
> Tag it when it is in sufficient shape for a release (or tag it now and
> move the tags back manually to the last version of a file that doesn't
> suffer from breakage). In any case, if it isn't ready for a release now
> then the last thing you want to do is stop people from working on the tree.
So we want to start vendor branching? Certainly could check out 1.3.19 and
release a 010319101 on win32 with the additional patch.
The ab and ap_sprintf patches broke a number of platforms. Either I'd branch
at 1.3.19 and apply the fix, or roll forward. Since there are other very good
bug fixes in the -dev branch, I'd like to continue to push for a prompt release.
Let's drop the word freeze from our vocabulary, and use the phrase feature-freeze
so we stop having this silly discussion. We aren't agreed on how to fork the code
for maintenance, and until we come to a concensus, we need to continue on the old
way of doing things.
Bill
