On Dec 23, 2016 9:58 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
Well, since I am actively working on trunk, I am obviously interested in
seeing continued work being done on it and the work being usable to our
users in a timely fashion. Since backports to 2.2 have not affected work on
2.4 or trunk, it is obvious
> On Dec 23, 2016, at 5:50 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> Just a couple quick thoughts...
>
> On Dec 23, 2016 2:55 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
>
> . We need to keep
> 2.4 viable and worthwhile
>
> So long as we fix the bugs, it is.
>
Personally, especially considering the current landscap
Well, since I am actively working on trunk, I am obviously interested in seeing
continued work being done on it and the work being usable to our users in a
timely fashion. Since backports to 2.2 have not affected work on 2.4 or trunk,
it is obvious as well that any backport efforts for 2.4 won't
Just a couple quick thoughts...
On Dec 23, 2016 2:55 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
As I have also stated, my personal belief is that
2.4 is finally reaching some traction, and if we
"turn off" development/enhancement of 2.4, we will
stop the uptake of 2.4 in its track.
I think you might be misco
Personally, I don't think that backporting stuff to
2.4 prevents or disallows development on 2.6/3.0. In
fact, I think it helps. We can easily do both...
after all, we are still "working" on 2.2.
As I have also stated, my personal belief is that
2.4 is finally reaching some traction, and if we
"tu
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> For me, it would be moving as much as we can from
> trunk to 2.4
-1. To echo your frequent use of media to emphasize
the point, with a song nearly as old as us;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsCyC1dZiN8
Next step is to actually end enha
Now that we have 2.4.25 done, I'd like us to take the
next few weeks thinking about how we'd like to see
the next release shape up.
For me, it would be moving as much as we can from
trunk to 2.4, again, to enable current users to
leverage and enjoy the goodness which is currently
"stuck" in trunk.
For the record, this is what I use:
http://home.apache.org/~jim/code/svn.merge
Most likely I will change it to have it accept $1 as the
names of people to mark as "Reviewed by" via a simple cut/paste
of the line from STATUS.
> On Dec 23, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
> In a branch
In a branch of a private discussion, some issues with how backports
are committed was raised.
IMO, our use of STATUS kind of makes the current Reviewed By: a little
misleading in http://people.apache.org/~jorton/svn.merge
* My older copy of the script doesn't have it at all, and I rarely
edit the
> On Dec 23, 2016, at 2:32 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
>
> I hope you sort this out in your ombudsman role, because this is the
> test of whether you understand ASF responsibilities, both legally,
> and in the sense of our entire ecosystem, and the will of your specific
> project who had a v
10 matches
Mail list logo
