At 10:43 AM 8/30/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:54:45AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
It's time for a 2.1-dev tree, if we want to be playing with new ideas,
guys.
If they test out clean and don't break compatibility [in any significant
way]
then they can
-Original Message-
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 6:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2.0/2.1 split?
I don't think we have enough -user- community to continue development
on any Apache 2.x. UNLESS we reconsider what
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 08:43:33AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I dislike backporting things. I think we all need to be on the 'same
version.' Heck, we have committers who refuse to use 2.0 (it's not
portable). If we go to 2.1, then I want to see 2.0 closed for
anything other than
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:17:52AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
No, that's exactly the problem we have with 1.3 right now. There *are*
people who are willing to backport fixes and even features to the 1.3
tree, it's only a faction of the group here that *doesn't* want that to
happen. I see no
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:17:52AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
No, that's exactly the problem we have with 1.3 right now. There *are*
people who are willing to backport fixes and even features to the 1.3
tree, it's only a faction of the group here that *doesn't* want
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:00:49AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
...
I honestly don't care where this ends up. It just needs to get
in to our tree somewhere. The aaa code is broken. It needs to
be fixed (and I believe the patches we already have start the
process).
Seems that everyone is killing his brains out, but we still have only
6500 upgrades from 1.3.x. One of them is the guy from Germany that is
running 2.0.18 for more than a year.
sure; and this will probably never change till the Apache2 APIs become somewhat more
stabilized.
What I mean is that
Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:00:49AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
...
I honestly don't care where this ends up. It just needs to get
in to our tree somewhere. The aaa code is broken. It needs to
be fixed (and I believe the patches we already have start
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
this talk of 2.1/branching etc is very premature.
what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting
out to a 2.1 tree
Agreed.
--Cliff
Ian Holsman wrote:
what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting
out to a 2.1 tree
++1
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
A society that
++1.
Ryan
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ian Holsman wrote:
what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting
out to a 2.1 tree
++1
--
___
Ryan Bloom
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
exactly,
this talk of 2.1/branching etc is very premature.
if you think your going to destablize the tree, then do your changes on
a copy of the file.. and when your done just overwrite the old one.
In preference to doing that, just create a
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't think we have enough of a community to continue active
development on two separate (but similar) trees. I don't want to
start 2.1 and still see everyone adding features to 2.0. -- justin
Why not do a tiny temporary branch just for
Marc Slemko wrote:
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
exactly,
this talk of 2.1/branching etc is very premature.
if you think your going to destablize the tree, then do your changes on
a copy of the file.. and when your done just overwrite the old one.
In preference to doing that,
I think this is an important fact which then stops many
users from updating to Apache2 because of missing their favorite
modules...
All platforms which mainly use binary distributions such as Win32 and
Netware are affected...
As we are using Apache 2.x on Win32 and Linux I'm just affected by
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 02:35:59PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
EXACTLY.
branch your code, make it work, merge it back.
rinse repeat.
what could be simpler than this ?
as long as your merge is done quickly (1-2 weeks) and is well-defined
you should be good to go.
Um, in this case, the code
At 04:22 PM 8/30/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ian Holsman wrote:
what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting
out to a 2.1 tree
++1
So... for the next couple months, we grind new ideas and development
to a halt (as things were when I got here in the spring of
At 04:28 PM 8/30/2002, Marc Slemko wrote:
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
exactly,
this talk of 2.1/branching etc is very premature.
if you think your going to destablize the tree, then do your changes on
a copy of the file.. and when your done just overwrite the old one.
In
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 04:22 PM 8/30/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ian Holsman wrote:
what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting
out to a 2.1 tree
++1
So... for the next couple months, we grind new ideas and development
to a halt (as things
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:10:27AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I don't think we have enough -user- community to continue development
on any Apache 2.x. UNLESS we reconsider what we are doing wrong.
Breaking our users on every bugfix/point release would be a good start.
Seeing the
20 matches
Mail list logo
