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

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

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 02:56:03PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On May 2, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Micha Lenk <micha@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.

Yet I fail to see how this could be seen as an argument not to agree on
something like trying to provide bugfix only releases.  The vote was
about /what/ to accomplish, not even /how/ (i.e. versioning was not even
mentioned in the vote).  Am I missing something?