You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@ebuilt.com> on 2001/11/28 04:37:32 UTC
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 ROADMAP STATUS
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 05:19:40AM -0000, wrowe@apache.org wrote:
> wrowe 01/11/26 21:19:39
>
> Modified: . STATUS
> Added: . ROADMAP
> Log:
> OK... we keep deferring these issues, it's time for a ROADMAP.
>
> Jump in everyone.
I think the ROADMAP file should be on the website. It shouldn't
be tied in with any specific httpd version (i.e. living in the
httpd-2.0 repository).
See httpd-site/xdocs/dev/project-plan.html
(That file could/should be migrated over to the new XML format...)
My guess is once 2.0 goes GA, we'll open up httpd-2.1. -- justin
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 ROADMAP STATUS
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
On Tuesday 27 November 2001 08:31 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 07:45:38PM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > My guess is that once 2.0 goes GA, we'll all be busy fixing bugs and
> > working on more fun stuff for a while. Also, take a look at everything
> > in the ROADMAP file. 99% of it can be done as a dot release in the 2.0
> > tree. Most of it doesn't require large portions of the code to be
> > re-written.
>
> Well, that's an issue of the contents in ROADMAP not its location. =)
>
> My original concern about ROADMAP being separated from a versioned
> source repository still stands. -- justin
>
> P.S. IMHO, the idea is that when we go GA, we're pretty damn
> certain there aren't a lot of bugs in it. When we say 2.0 is GA,
> we MUST mean that we 100% recommend switching from 1.3 to 2.0.
> I haven't seen any major showstoppers from 2.0.28, so we're on the
> right track. 2.0.29 should have performance improvements, but may
> have some bugs due to that...
I think you are kidding yourself. Take a look at 1.3. That was supposed to
be an interim release, in between 1.2 and 2.0. The real bugs won't really
start to come out of 2.0 until it hits GA and millions of sites start to migrate to
it. Also, remember that most sites aren't going to migrate to 2.0 until it has
been out for a very long time.
I'm all for starting to look at 2.1 and 3.0, but let's not jump the gun too much.
I would thoroughly expect at least 22 2.0 GA releases, just like we had with
1.3, and I would expect that a lot of the advancements people want to make
can be done very easily in a 2.0 framework.
Even the async work can be done inside of 2.0. It won't be fully async, but
we can do a lot of the low hanging fruit.
Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 ROADMAP STATUS
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>.
From: "Ryan Bloom" <rb...@covalent.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 9:45 PM
> My guess is that once 2.0 goes GA, we'll all be busy fixing bugs and
> working on more fun stuff for a while. Also, take a look at everything in
> the ROADMAP file. 99% of it can be done as a dot release in the 2.0
> tree. Most of it doesn't require large portions of the code to be re-written.
The only bit that causes problems is introducing/rearchitecting modules, such
as the auth stuff. Yes, incremental changes could go into 2.0.x, but dropping
out a module [such as splitting mod_auth in two] or the apr_file_t member of the
request rec are really significant enough to warrent the 2.1 bump.
The splitting-a-module means their old config files are [probably] broken. For
the user's sanity, a 2.1 bump makes sense.
The apr_file_t member means modules must be recrafted to pay attention to this
open file handle. I think the _real_ benefit is to split out the filesystem as
it's own module, much like mod_dav_fs.
In any case, plenty of folks regularly complain that their suggestions are
ignored, or are discussed and just drop. That isn't a good way to attract
contributors. ROADMAP allows us to do some planing/architecting into the
future, beyond the event horizion.
I'm really beginning to believe that nayoga's bugzilla might be [part of] the
answer to the headaches.
Bill
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 ROADMAP STATUS
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@ebuilt.com>.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 07:45:38PM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> My guess is that once 2.0 goes GA, we'll all be busy fixing bugs and
> working on more fun stuff for a while. Also, take a look at everything in
> the ROADMAP file. 99% of it can be done as a dot release in the 2.0
> tree. Most of it doesn't require large portions of the code to be re-written.
Well, that's an issue of the contents in ROADMAP not its location. =)
My original concern about ROADMAP being separated from a versioned
source repository still stands. -- justin
P.S. IMHO, the idea is that when we go GA, we're pretty damn
certain there aren't a lot of bugs in it. When we say 2.0 is GA,
we MUST mean that we 100% recommend switching from 1.3 to 2.0.
I haven't seen any major showstoppers from 2.0.28, so we're on the
right track. 2.0.29 should have performance improvements, but may
have some bugs due to that...
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 ROADMAP STATUS
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
On Tuesday 27 November 2001 07:37 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 05:19:40AM -0000, wrowe@apache.org wrote:
> > wrowe 01/11/26 21:19:39
> >
> > Modified: . STATUS
> > Added: . ROADMAP
> > Log:
> > OK... we keep deferring these issues, it's time for a ROADMAP.
> >
> > Jump in everyone.
>
> I think the ROADMAP file should be on the website. It shouldn't
> be tied in with any specific httpd version (i.e. living in the
> httpd-2.0 repository).
>
> See httpd-site/xdocs/dev/project-plan.html
>
> (That file could/should be migrated over to the new XML format...)
>
> My guess is once 2.0 goes GA, we'll open up httpd-2.1. -- justin
My guess is that once 2.0 goes GA, we'll all be busy fixing bugs and
working on more fun stuff for a while. Also, take a look at everything in
the ROADMAP file. 99% of it can be done as a dot release in the 2.0
tree. Most of it doesn't require large portions of the code to be re-written.
Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------