You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 1998/01/09 18:45:00 UTC
The Apache Group's 1st order of business
I think that one of our 1st orders of business (well, maybe after
all this) is to organize the 1st annual Apache Developer's
Conference.
Of course, it would simply be an excuse to get everyone together,
smoke some good cigars, drink some good beer and get shitfaced.
Cripes, we need it :)
--
====================================================================
Jim Jagielski | jaguNET Access Services
jim@jaguNET.com | http://www.jaguNET.com/
"Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Martin Kraemer <Ma...@mch.sni.de>.
On Fri, Jan 09, 1998 at 12:53:33PM -0500, rasmus@bellglobal.com wrote:
> I'll bet there won't be any single city with more than 2 developers, other
> than SF.
Well, Ralf and me aren't standing all that bad - we're both from munich,
and we haven't ever even met!
Martin
--
| S I E M E N S | <Ma...@mch.sni.de> | Siemens Nixdorf
| ------------- | Voice: +49-89-636-46021 | Informationssysteme AG
| N I X D O R F | FAX: +49-89-636-44994 | 81730 Munich, Germany
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~My opinions only, of course; pgp key available on request
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com>.
At 12:53 PM 1/9/98 -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>I recall... we need some charitable contributions to pay the way :)
Airline tickets are now *really* cheap, by the way. I can get to NY for
$250 or so, and vice-versa.
Brian
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
specialization is for insects brian@organic.com
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Martin Kraemer <Ma...@mch.sni.de>.
On Mon, Jan 12, 1998 at 03:17:28PM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
> I agree.
Okay, so do I, you're both right. It's just not so easy to get the
initial start. And I fear I'm not the only one here in europe who
has to struggle with slow links....
>
> You can keep a local CVS tree (not checked out) with cvsup with little
> overhead.
Yes, I do that anyway. I've got a local tree and sync that by patching in
the apache-cvs mails.
Martin
--
| S I E M E N S | <Ma...@mch.sni.de> | Siemens Nixdorf
| ------------- | Voice: +49-89-636-46021 | Informationssysteme AG
| N I X D O R F | FAX: +49-89-636-44994 | 81730 Munich, Germany
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~My opinions only, of course; pgp key available on request
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>.
I agree.
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Dean Gaudet wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Martin Kraemer wrote:
>
> > Are we carrying all the cvs history into 2.0? I'd rather propose to make
> > a "clean import" from a 1.3.0 tree. That makes it much easier for
> > "us here at the other side of the pond" to fetch a complete CVS archive
> > (it's -what? 7 MB(?) already -- oh! it's vanished from /from-cvs/!)
You can keep a local CVS tree (not checked out) with cvsup with little
overhead.
>
> :(
>
> While I completely sympathize with the slow link thing... can you use
> cvsup to help the process? I'm a huge fan of having the history in all
> files and not having to dig into another repository. There's been many
> times when I've wondered "why the heck is this line the way it is?" Then
> "cvs annotate" tells me what rev to start looking at... and that won't
> work as easily without a full repository.
>
> Dean
>
>
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>.
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> Are we carrying all the cvs history into 2.0? I'd rather propose to make
> a "clean import" from a 1.3.0 tree. That makes it much easier for
> "us here at the other side of the pond" to fetch a complete CVS archive
> (it's -what? 7 MB(?) already -- oh! it's vanished from /from-cvs/!)
:(
While I completely sympathize with the slow link thing... can you use
cvsup to help the process? I'm a huge fan of having the history in all
files and not having to dig into another repository. There's been many
times when I've wondered "why the heck is this line the way it is?" Then
"cvs annotate" tells me what rev to start looking at... and that won't
work as easily without a full repository.
Dean
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Martin Kraemer <Ma...@mch.sni.de>.
On Fri, Jan 09, 1998 at 11:35:24AM -0800, Alexei Kosut wrote:
> Another thing to consider, given the recent discussions, might be the
> following:
>
> telnet dev.apache.org
> cd /export/home/cvs
> mv apache apache-1.2
> mv apachen apache-1.3
> cp -Rp apache-1.3 apache-2.0
Are we carrying all the cvs history into 2.0? I'd rather propose to make
a "clean import" from a 1.3.0 tree. That makes it much easier for
"us here at the other side of the pond" to fetch a complete CVS archive
(it's -what? 7 MB(?) already -- oh! it's vanished from /from-cvs/!)
If someone needs the older history, let her fetch the 1.3.0 version.
Marti
--
| S I E M E N S | <Ma...@mch.sni.de> | Siemens Nixdorf
| ------------- | Voice: +49-89-636-46021 | Informationssysteme AG
| N I X D O R F | FAX: +49-89-636-44994 | 81730 Munich, Germany
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~My opinions only, of course; pgp key available on request
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>.
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Randy Terbush wrote:
> Agreed. I think that we should commit to a quick 1.2.6 and forget the
> 1.2 tree for the most part. Concentrate on getting a 1.3 out soon
> and start making the 2.0 CVS snapshots available for play.
The main thing I want to see in 1.2.6 are the protocol fixes (my chunking
fix, Roy's fix, and a range-request fix). It is a HTTP/1.1 reference
implementation after all :) And if we bug some people who've sent us
platform fixes that don't get in... well we can say "they're in 1.3"
'cause I'm pretty sure they are in 1.3. Jim you said you like doing the
portability stuff... you want to make sure that we haven't missed any for
1.3? :)
Once the protocol fixes and portability fixes are in 1.3 I'm happy with a
split.
Dean
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Randy Terbush <ra...@covalent.net>.
On Sun, Jan 11, 1998 at 04:27:22PM +0000, Rob Hartill wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> > Alexei Kosut wrote:
> > > Another thing to consider, given the recent discussions, might be the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > telnet dev.apache.org
> > > cd /export/home/cvs
> > > mv apache apache-1.2
> > > mv apachen apache-1.3
> > > cp -Rp apache-1.3 apache-2.0
> > >
> > > And then assign the apache-1.3 module to a real release manager so we can
> > > finish it up and ship it out, and let people play with apache-2.0 all they
> > > want?
> >
> > I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I think this is a good
> > idea...
>
> It's a good idea only if 1.3 can be put to bed quickly and something
> comes out of the 2.0 tree for public use sooner rather than later.
>
> The success of long term branching of the sources will be determined
> by the rate of progress and releases of the most advanced branch. As
> we've seen with 1.2/1.3, time is wasted revisiting old code (1.2) when
> the new code (1.3) is severely delayed and not described publically as
> being stable.
Agreed. I think that we should commit to a quick 1.2.6 and forget the
1.2 tree for the most part. Concentrate on getting a 1.3 out soon
and start making the 2.0 CVS snapshots available for play.
> There are lots of good ideas floating around at the moment. What's missing
> is an overall plan which implements many/all of these ideas without creating
> (m)any conflicting goals.
Seems that copying the repository as described and applying the c-t-r
policy to the 2.0 repository would be a good start.
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Randy Terbush wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 11, 1998 at 02:40:40PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > Alexei Kosut wrote:
> > > Another thing to consider, given the recent discussions, might be the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > telnet dev.apache.org
> > > cd /export/home/cvs
> > > mv apache apache-1.2
> > > mv apachen apache-1.3
> > > cp -Rp apache-1.3 apache-2.0
> > >
> > > And then assign the apache-1.3 module to a real release manager so we can
> > > finish it up and ship it out, and let people play with apache-2.0 all they
> > > want?
>
> I would also like to see us do this. We (I) have argued in the past that
> these additional repositories have over taxed us, but I have changed
> my mind. This would clearly eliminate the conflicts of wanting to
> commit changes to a tree that we are trying to release.
>
> Lets vote to do this and get 1.3 out.
>
> +1
+1
#ken P-)}
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Randy Terbush <ra...@covalent.net>.
On Sun, Jan 11, 1998 at 02:40:40PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Alexei Kosut wrote:
> > Another thing to consider, given the recent discussions, might be the
> > following:
> >
> > telnet dev.apache.org
> > cd /export/home/cvs
> > mv apache apache-1.2
> > mv apachen apache-1.3
> > cp -Rp apache-1.3 apache-2.0
> >
> > And then assign the apache-1.3 module to a real release manager so we can
> > finish it up and ship it out, and let people play with apache-2.0 all they
> > want?
>
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I think this is a good
> idea...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben.
I would also like to see us do this. We (I) have argued in the past that
these additional repositories have over taxed us, but I have changed
my mind. This would clearly eliminate the conflicts of wanting to
commit changes to a tree that we are trying to release.
Lets vote to do this and get 1.3 out.
+1
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Alexei Kosut <ak...@leland.Stanford.EDU>.
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Alexei Kosut wrote:
> > Another thing to consider, given the recent discussions, might be the
> > following:
> >
> > telnet dev.apache.org
> > cd /export/home/cvs
> > mv apache apache-1.2
> > mv apachen apache-1.3
> > cp -Rp apache-1.3 apache-2.0
> >
> > And then assign the apache-1.3 module to a real release manager so we can
> > finish it up and ship it out, and let people play with apache-2.0 all they
> > want?
>
> +1.
>
> Since I presume I'll have to be the one to do this, if there are no
> objections by Tuesday evening I'll do it then.
>
> Are there changes I need to make to the CVS history or config files to do
> this right? any s/apachen/apache-1.3/g somewhere?
I don't think so, though you do need to create all the apache-*-cvs
aliases.
And, of course, all those with checked-out copies would need to mess with
the Repository files. And any scripts that work off checked-out copies
(the from-cvs stuff, etc...), I suppose.
But I think CVS itself doesn't care.
-- Alexei Kosut <ak...@stanford.edu> <http://www.stanford.edu/~akosut/>
Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <http://www.apache.org> *
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com>.
Alexei Kosut wrote:
> Another thing to consider, given the recent discussions, might be the
> following:
>
> telnet dev.apache.org
> cd /export/home/cvs
> mv apache apache-1.2
> mv apachen apache-1.3
> cp -Rp apache-1.3 apache-2.0
>
> And then assign the apache-1.3 module to a real release manager so we can
> finish it up and ship it out, and let people play with apache-2.0 all they
> want?
+1.
Since I presume I'll have to be the one to do this, if there are no
objections by Tuesday evening I'll do it then.
Are there changes I need to make to the CVS history or config files to do
this right? any s/apachen/apache-1.3/g somewhere?
Brian
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
specialization is for insects brian@organic.com
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>.
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> BTW, if anyone is thinking about making a coherent plan for 2.0, one of
> the things that _must_ be on it is to use Win32 native handles instead
> of mapping onto fake Unix handles...
Yea, and we need a model that can do away with the Unix-like behaviour
of blocking on posix-like calls like select() since NT doesn't work well
that way.
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>.
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Alexei Kosut wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Rob Hartill wrote:
>
> > A slow 2.0 will mean a long shelflife for 1.3, which means people
> > spending time on both trees instead of 2.0. That's what we have with
> > 1.2 and 1.3 now. My point is that without a plan to get 2.0 out in under
> > 3 months (say), 1.3 will need supporting and that'll slow down 2.0 which
> > means 1.3 needs yet more support and so on.
>
> Regardless, I don't think this has any bearing on the current discussion.
> Consider: Apache 1.3 will need X amount of time to be released if we do
> not work on 2.0 consecutively. If we also work on 2.0, Apache 1.3 will
> need X' time to be released, with X' < X if we stick with only bug and
> Win32 fixes. Apache 2.0 will take Y amount of time to be completed if we
> start coding it after 1.3.0 ships. It will take Y' time if we start now.
> It is probable that Y' > Y, but I would venture to say that X + Y < Y'
> (note that Y' > X' by definition). And that Y' - X' < Y.
>
> Now, X, X', Y and Y' are all dependent on many factors, but the above
> analysis suggests that starting a 2.0 branch now, even with no plan
> or schedule whatsoever, will mean *less* shelf time for 1.3, not more, as
> you suggest.
>
> And, honestly, once we have a 1.3.0 we like, I don't think we'll spend
> much time maintaining it.
Once we have any new tree we won't spend much time maintaining 1.3. Until
we do, people will push for a lot of things into 1.3.
I am worried about splitting without an idea of where we are going, since
it would really be best to have a clear idea of the major changes before
splitting since they are the onces that would be nice to get started in
first.
When we split, it would be very useful to find someone who can be a
tree-sync-guy. That means that they would keep a list of things committed
to 1.3, and make sure they get into 2.0 if appropriate. In the start,
this would be easy. As they diverge, it takes more effort but hopefully
1.3 changes slow down.
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Alexei Kosut <ak...@leland.Stanford.EDU>.
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Rob Hartill wrote:
> A slow 2.0 will mean a long shelflife for 1.3, which means people
> spending time on both trees instead of 2.0. That's what we have with
> 1.2 and 1.3 now. My point is that without a plan to get 2.0 out in under
> 3 months (say), 1.3 will need supporting and that'll slow down 2.0 which
> means 1.3 needs yet more support and so on.
Regardless, I don't think this has any bearing on the current discussion.
Consider: Apache 1.3 will need X amount of time to be released if we do
not work on 2.0 consecutively. If we also work on 2.0, Apache 1.3 will
need X' time to be released, with X' < X if we stick with only bug and
Win32 fixes. Apache 2.0 will take Y amount of time to be completed if we
start coding it after 1.3.0 ships. It will take Y' time if we start now.
It is probable that Y' > Y, but I would venture to say that X + Y < Y'
(note that Y' > X' by definition). And that Y' - X' < Y.
Now, X, X', Y and Y' are all dependent on many factors, but the above
analysis suggests that starting a 2.0 branch now, even with no plan
or schedule whatsoever, will mean *less* shelf time for 1.3, not more, as
you suggest.
And, honestly, once we have a 1.3.0 we like, I don't think we'll spend
much time maintaining it.
-- Alexei Kosut <ak...@stanford.edu> <http://www.stanford.edu/~akosut/>
Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <http://www.apache.org> *
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Rob Hartill <ro...@imdb.com>.
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > It's a good idea only if 1.3 can be put to bed quickly and something
> > comes out of the 2.0 tree for public use sooner rather than later.
>
> It seems to me that this will give people something to add their new
> ideas to, thus giving 1.3 a better chance of actually getting released.
> I can't see how it can delay 2.0...
A slow 2.0 will mean a long shelflife for 1.3, which means people
spending time on both trees instead of 2.0. That's what we have with
1.2 and 1.3 now. My point is that without a plan to get 2.0 out in under
3 months (say), 1.3 will need supporting and that'll slow down 2.0 which
means 1.3 needs yet more support and so on.
2.0 could be released in 3 months if we knew its shelflife was 3 months
or less since there will be less urgency to get everything in before
a tarball is created.
The first few days/week of a brand new -dev tree are always the most
productive. Lets have more of these highly-productive phases by forcing
releases closer together.
How about 2 months of free-for-all development, 1 month "beta" testing
and if the result is no worse than the previous release, ship it.
--
Rob Hartill Internet Movie Database (Ltd)
http://www.moviedatabase.com/ .. a site for sore eyes.
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Rob Hartill wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> > Alexei Kosut wrote:
> > > Another thing to consider, given the recent discussions, might be the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > telnet dev.apache.org
> > > cd /export/home/cvs
> > > mv apache apache-1.2
> > > mv apachen apache-1.3
> > > cp -Rp apache-1.3 apache-2.0
> > >
> > > And then assign the apache-1.3 module to a real release manager so we can
> > > finish it up and ship it out, and let people play with apache-2.0 all they
> > > want?
> >
> > I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I think this is a good
> > idea...
>
> It's a good idea only if 1.3 can be put to bed quickly and something
> comes out of the 2.0 tree for public use sooner rather than later.
It seems to me that this will give people something to add their new
ideas to, thus giving 1.3 a better chance of actually getting released.
I can't see how it can delay 2.0...
> The success of long term branching of the sources will be determined
> by the rate of progress and releases of the most advanced branch. As
> we've seen with 1.2/1.3, time is wasted revisiting old code (1.2) when
> the new code (1.3) is severely delayed and not described publically as
> being stable.
I don't think it is revisiting 1.2 that delays 1.3. It's putting stuff
in that should probably be in 2.0 that delays it.
> There are lots of good ideas floating around at the moment. What's missing
> is an overall plan which implements many/all of these ideas without creating
> (m)any conflicting goals.
Yeah, that is a slight snag with 2.0, I must admit. But at least it can
be used to put all this new stuff in while we formulate a plan.
BTW, if anyone is thinking about making a coherent plan for 2.0, one of
the things that _must_ be on it is to use Win32 native handles instead
of mapping onto fake Unix handles...
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Rob Hartill <ro...@imdb.com>.
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Alexei Kosut wrote:
> > Another thing to consider, given the recent discussions, might be the
> > following:
> >
> > telnet dev.apache.org
> > cd /export/home/cvs
> > mv apache apache-1.2
> > mv apachen apache-1.3
> > cp -Rp apache-1.3 apache-2.0
> >
> > And then assign the apache-1.3 module to a real release manager so we can
> > finish it up and ship it out, and let people play with apache-2.0 all they
> > want?
>
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I think this is a good
> idea...
It's a good idea only if 1.3 can be put to bed quickly and something
comes out of the 2.0 tree for public use sooner rather than later.
The success of long term branching of the sources will be determined
by the rate of progress and releases of the most advanced branch. As
we've seen with 1.2/1.3, time is wasted revisiting old code (1.2) when
the new code (1.3) is severely delayed and not described publically as
being stable.
There are lots of good ideas floating around at the moment. What's missing
is an overall plan which implements many/all of these ideas without creating
(m)any conflicting goals.
--
Rob Hartill Internet Movie Database (Ltd)
http://www.moviedatabase.com/ .. a site for sore eyes.
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Alexei Kosut wrote:
> Another thing to consider, given the recent discussions, might be the
> following:
>
> telnet dev.apache.org
> cd /export/home/cvs
> mv apache apache-1.2
> mv apachen apache-1.3
> cp -Rp apache-1.3 apache-2.0
>
> And then assign the apache-1.3 module to a real release manager so we can
> finish it up and ship it out, and let people play with apache-2.0 all they
> want?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I think this is a good
idea...
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Paul Sutton <pa...@eu.c2.net>.
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Alexei Kosut wrote:
> On another note: does anyone think it might be time to release a 1.3b4?
> It's been nearly two months since 1.3b3. Note that I'm not volunteering.
Yep, +1. We need more testing on the NT port. Let's get the next beta out
asap. Erm, could still do with a proper installshield installation. I've
given up with IS5, it is a pile of nastiness (and I only had an eval copy
anyway). I'm happy to do an installer with IS2 express, though, if
necessary.
> Another thing to consider, given the recent discussions, might be the
> following:
>
> telnet dev.apache.org
> cd /export/home/cvs
> mv apache apache-1.2
> mv apachen apache-1.3
> cp -Rp apache-1.3 apache-2.0
+1.
//pcs
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by Alexei Kosut <ak...@leland.Stanford.EDU>.
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998 rasmus@bellglobal.com wrote:
> Right, in order to pick a place though I guess we all go to wherever we
> want it to take place and then review where we ended up after the fact.
> I'll bet there won't be any single city with more than 2 developers, other
> than SF.
>
> We tried arranging this last year. It failed miserably.
Right. If I recall, we decided that the best solution was to get someone
(not any of us) to buy us all plane tickets to Tahiti or something like
that.
On another note: does anyone think it might be time to release a 1.3b4?
It's been nearly two months since 1.3b3. Note that I'm not volunteering.
Another thing to consider, given the recent discussions, might be the
following:
telnet dev.apache.org
cd /export/home/cvs
mv apache apache-1.2
mv apachen apache-1.3
cp -Rp apache-1.3 apache-2.0
And then assign the apache-1.3 module to a real release manager so we can
finish it up and ship it out, and let people play with apache-2.0 all they
want?
To those who talk about a 1.4, I don't think it matters. Apache 2.0 will
not be a complete rewrite, or even close to it. It will be "Apache 1.3
plus a new process model plus a revised request API plus a more consistent
method of configuration plus neat new features." Heck, the first "Apache
2.0"-like construct was written by Rob Thau eighteen months ago, and bore
considerable resemblance to Apache 1.1, it just happened to be
multithreaded, with a new I/O package. We might as well call our next
release 2.0. Heck, we could call it 0.2 and really confuse people. Really
doesn't matter.
-- Alexei Kosut <ak...@stanford.edu> <http://www.stanford.edu/~akosut/>
Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <http://www.apache.org> *
Re: The Apache Group's 1st order of business
Posted by ra...@bellglobal.com.
> I think that one of our 1st orders of business (well, maybe after
> all this) is to organize the 1st annual Apache Developer's
> Conference.
>
> Of course, it would simply be an excuse to get everyone together,
> smoke some good cigars, drink some good beer and get shitfaced.
Right, in order to pick a place though I guess we all go to wherever we
want it to take place and then review where we ended up after the fact.
I'll bet there won't be any single city with more than 2 developers, other
than SF.
We tried arranging this last year. It failed miserably.
-Rasmus