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

Re: [VOTE] Allow for defect fix releases at httpd

> On May 2, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Micha Lenk <micha@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Graham,
> On 05/01/2018 04:33 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>> What has been missing is input from the major distributors of our
>> software (Fedora, Ubuntu, Redhat, Debian, Apple, Windows, Linux from
>> Scratch, etc), who I believe are probably going “httpd is a mature
>> project, we have nothing to worry about”. I would recommend against
>> making changes to our approach without soliciting the views of these
>> people and making sure they’re all catered for.
> Why would you make a proposed change dependent on the (almost necessarily contradicting) views of external entities? Is the feedback from the major distributors through existing channels really so bad that the httpd project can't get to an opinion of what it would like to accomplish on its own? What exactly are you afraid of?

Due to the modular aspect of httpd, we are lucky to have an extremely large,
vibrant and diverse eco-system of module authors. Some are companies
that provide functionality via binary modules, others are single-author
GitHub authors.

A change on versioning and what versioning means and guarantees
related to versioning affects this extremely large community. There is
also the ISV and commercial *providers* of httpd to be considered as
well, and how these changes would affect them.

With all that in mind, you can't just "willy-nilly" decide to change
things without knowledge of how such changes will affect the eco-
system as well as without a really solid rationale for said change.
I don't consider "I can point out a handful of projects that do it
different than httpd" as a solid rationale.