Re: this 1.3b1 fiasco

[Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>]

Look guys. This is probably a bit over the edge... Kiss and make up 
now.

With all due respect to Jim and Ken, without tallying the votes, it 
seems that the general concensus is that we would like to be a 
little bit flexible WRT the freeze. I realize that it takes someone 
stepping up to try to push things along, but that desire to push 
has to be in sync with the rest of the project members. 

I would also respectfully ask Ken to reverse any veto he holds over 
OS abstraction. Dean's changes I believe were exempt from the veto. 

I would also ask again that Ken submit his named-that-logformat 
feature. It looks pretty solid and presents much less of an issue 
than the current state of Win32.

There is nothing to gain by releasing code that is not ready.



> Dean Gaudet wrote:
> > 
> > Ken's veto was in relation to your release schedule, which is now moot. 
> > 
> 
> I thought it was due to his desire to push 1.3 along. In any case, you
> do not have the authority to declare anyone's -1 as "moot".
> 
> > >From here on out I'll fix bugs only.  I'm certainly not going to work on
> > features.  I can't stand this fucking bickering. 
> 
> Only because someone thinks there should be a bit more _group_ control
> over the code, and not become anyone's personal playground.
> 
> We were both trying to do what we thought was right for 1.3. My
> direction was to get it out asap; your's was to add many new features
> and improvements to it while you could. IMO, I thought that we could
> get 1.3 out, fold your patches in and then continue with 2.0. So
> your features and additions would _not_ simply fade on the vine,
> but would be included with 2.0, the whole idea being the less
> we pump into 1.3, the faster and less frequent the betas. Even you
> admit yourself that the buffered log patches have not been
> incredibly in-depth tested. All I said was "can't it wait?"
> I don't think that's such a terrible question.
> 
> I'm sorry if you think the idea of someone trying to maintain
> some sort of path and schedule for Apache is enough to prevent
> you from using your obvious talents in keeping Apache so
> fucking cool. IMO that would be a terrible loss and I would
> regret that, as I think all of us would. But I'll be damned if
> I'll take blame for it. I had every right to make my comments.
> If you think that's enough to go off out of spite, well, that's
> too bad.
> 
> -- 
> ====================================================================
>       Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
>      jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
>             "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"