apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <da...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] cgi_exec_info_t: detached & addrspace fieldscombined
Date Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:33:37 GMT
> On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 20:06 +0100, David Reid wrote:
> > Can someone clarify the status of this patch?
> >
> > I wasn't planning on including it in the 1.0 tarball as I don't see how
we
> > could test it in time and making an PAI at this late stage isn't a good
idea
> > is it?
> >
> > However, in a private reply Jean-Jacques stated that he hoped this to go
> > into 2.0.51, which would imply it goes into our 0.9 tree. This is a
little
> > worrying as we'd then be in the situation whereby 0.9 had something that
1.0
> > didn't...
> >
> > I'm tempted to say that this should ONLY be applied for 1.1 and upwards
> > which would obviously mean that the httpd 2.0 tree wouldn't get the
fix -
> > can we all say not ideal?
> >
> > I'd be interested in hearing what people think.
>
> Since you asked...
>
> I think we should branch httpd 2.1 into 2.2, and make a new stable
> branch. The focus Work on making an APR 1.1 with *any* API changes we
> need, and at the same time push 2.1 towards a 2.2 branch.  Hopefully in
> a month or two, release APR 1.1.0 and HTTPd 2.2.0 with the new APIs and
> plenty of new features.

As Will Rowe points out this is about APR and not httpd.

> I believe this route has more advantages than trying to push such a
> feature back into httpd 2.0.X

Again, while I may share your views, this is largely irrelevant for this
forum :-(

david


Mime
View raw message