From dev-return-13200-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Mon Nov 22 16:10:37 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 12336 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2004 16:10:36 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Nov 2004 16:10:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 79698 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 2004 16:09:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 79563 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 2004 16:09:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 79399 invoked by uid 99); 22 Nov 2004 16:09:24 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Message-ID: <41A20F10.6040104@wstoddard.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:08:48 -0500 From: Bill Stoddard User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org CC: Jim Jagielski , dev@apr.apache.org, Justin Erenkrantz Subject: Re: 2.2 roadmap with respect to APR was Re: [NOTICE] CVS to SVN migration complete References: <1100891614.3516.111.camel@grunt.striker.nl> <20041120014943.1507f466@parker> <20BD7D09FE72AAE1D4601067@st-augustin.ics.uci.edu> <6.1.2.0.2.20041119195907.06649ec0@pop3.rowe-clan.net> <251409A8D7DA50F198EFA39D@[10.0.1.16]> <6.2.0.14.2.20041120101355.0410c4e8@pop3.rowe-clan.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20041120101355.0410c4e8@pop3.rowe-clan.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 08:23 AM 11/20/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > >>On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >> >>>So, my opinion is that we let Allen branch apr off now and let him go at it at a measured pace, but we shouldn't intend to hold httpd 2.2 for that. -- justin >> >>+1. Of course, I am assuming that his 64bit fixes will likely >>break binary compatibility. > > > It does - that's the rub. And, for 2.2, this was always the plan. And that's precisely the reason we should attack the 64 bit problem for 2.2. This will give the 2.2 series a much longer life than if we push off the 64 bit work to 2.4. Bill