> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 08:18
>
> Paulo Gaspar wrote:
>
> However, one of them is that there is no such thing as a
> "version" of any Apache
> project until there is a vote to go that way, and elect a
> particular code base
> to be that version. See below for more.
No doubt about that.
I already started using "3.x HEAD" instead of "3.3" - which seems to
be acceptable.
I only did not do it earlier because no one stated that this would be
an acceptable term. That should have been clearly stated in the list
already. I was told I should stop using "3.3" but was given no
alternative.
Since everybody has been using "3.3" (including those that now ask not
to do it) it should be clearly stated in the list that this should stop
and what the correct name is.
That would be a way to avoid that people talking about the subject
would be confused. And this - in the DEV list - looks so important to
me as avoiding people to think that the 3.3 version exists.
(Again, just in the DEV list. Talking about 3.3 in the USER list would
be a mess.)
Still, for me (and I believe that for must of the others) it has been
just another name to call the "3.x HEAD". It has been clear that this
wasn't yet an approved version.
> > Catalina was a revolution, a proposal on following a different path.
>
> It was, until it was elected as the code base for 4.0. Now, it's the
> established direction for 4.x.
>
> Note that there was no "jakarta-tomcat-4.1" branch, or any such
> thing as "Tomcat
> 4.1", until the vote that took place last week. Now, there is.
> Such a thing hasn't happened for 3.3.
Clear too.
> [... Crystal clear explanation of the fix decided for the "3.3"
> issue ...]
> > At the moment, for me (and possibly others) 3.3 is an evolution.
>
> Regardless of whether or not this is true, it's still a new
> version, and still
> needs to follow the same proposal and voting procedures.
Of course.
My statement is out of context. Notice that I was just disagree about
it being a "revolution" as Jon stated.
But this is a slightly subjective and there will always be different
opinions.
> NOTE: When this proposal is made, people who vote on it should
> remember the
> following:
> * Electing a code base needs at least three +1 votes and no -1 votes.
>
> [... a clear list of other rules ...]
>
> (FYI: I am on record -- see the PMC Meeting Minutes that will be
> published
> shortly -- that I will *not* veto a release plan for 3.3 that
> meets my concerns about support.)
I would never expect another thing from you.
But the veto power can still be misused by someone. That concern was
already expressed by other people (Hans? I am not sure) in the list and
a mechanism should be created to address that.
> >
> > Maybe (or maybe not) some people already see Costin's work as 5.0 but I
> > think that most of us don't go that far. I will not be thinking about
> > what 5.0 should be in the near future.
>
> So far (to my knowledge), Costin has not proposed it for this
> purpose.
That was just an answer to something that Jon said.
> [... More crystal clear explanations about name rules...]
>
> Craig McClanahan
Thank you very much Craig. I still had not seen all this stuff put together
in such crystal clear way.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
