Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <200411221627.iAMGRnp12402@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: 2.2 roadmap with respect to APR was Re: [NOTICE] CVS to  SVN
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:27:46 -0500 (EST)
Cc: jim@jagunet.com (Jim Jagielski), dev@apr.apache.org,
   justin@erenkrantz.com (Justin Erenkrantz)
Reply-To: jim@jagunet.com
In-Reply-To: <no.id> from "Bill Stoddard" at Nov 22, 2004 11:08:48 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bill Stoddard wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

I agree... Otherwise, we won't see many people move to
2.2 since 3rd party modules won't be available for it,
since module developers will know that within a "short"
amount of time, they'll need to "redo" their modules
for the 64bit fixes.

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
    "There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else."