Taking a snapshot look at the STATUS file at any given point in time
does not show the actual problem. The problem is the delay in getting
from point A (submitting a proposal) to point B (approval for backport).
For a hot issue with many interested parties (who actually hold voting
rights), ge
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 10:45:14PM +, Matthieu Estrade wrote:
[...]
> I think 2.1 is not public enough
> Actually, i think people don't take time to use cvs + cvs on apr and
> apr-util, or don't take time to find snapshot to use 2.1. They also
> don't telnet apache.org to look what we are run
IMHO, I am not sure we need lazy backport on stable 2.0.
Lazy backport on 2.0 make it less stable, working for 2.1 is not really
exciting because nobody or really few people use it.
The new auth layer in 2.1 is better than 2.0, inside 2.1 for a long time
now, but not popular as it should be.
I t
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:42:08 +, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 06:10:17PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
>
> >During ApacheCon several httpd PMC members got together to discuss
> > current issues with the httpd project and to try to find better ways
> > to m
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 06:10:17PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>During ApacheCon several httpd PMC members got together to discuss
> current issues with the httpd project and to try to find better ways
> to manage the project. One of the issues that was discussed heavily
> was the current poli
moving to the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:08:20 PM >>>
During ApacheCon several httpd PMC members got together to discuss
current issues with the httpd project and to try to find better ways
to
manage the project. One of the issues that was discussed he
