[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

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 <jim@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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:
I suspect that what have been committed by me is incomplete. And it is still un-fixed (by me)

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.