Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.2.20041215150707.03d94008@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:14:25 -0600
To: Cliff Woolley <jwoolley@virginia.edu>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: Backport and release policy for APR and APR-UTIL...
Cc: Brad Nicholes <BNICHOLES@novell.com>, dev@apr.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0412151327470.11265@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU>
References: <s1c01067.056@sinclair.provo.novell.com>
 <Pine.GSO.4.58.0412151327470.11265@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Ok, you have me confused :)  There can be no binary breakage
between 1.0.0 and 1.99.999.  Nothing (except for unreleased
changes in our svn repository) as we move forward.

Minor bumps introduce new features.  Subversion bumps fix bugs.
That's the short story.

I'm increasing concerned that folks believe that we won't go
to 1.1 or 2.0 until there is some magic 'httpd' project release.
Nothing is farther from the truth.

APR and APR-UTIL will be released as we have improvements that
are stable.  If the httpd, svn, foo, bash or bang projects want
to use a specific version that is fine.

Moving forward, httpd may decide to 'officially' move from
version 1.1 to 1.3, for example, between their 2.2.0 and 2.2.4
releases.  That's allowed by both project's compatibility rules.
Nothing is changing that breaks code compiled for apr 1.1 or
httpd 2.2.0 when a user moves up to 1.3 and 2.2.4.

Where projects with strong binary bindings get trapped, is when
they want to jump from APR 1.x to 2.x (or straight to 3.x skipping
our 2.x releases.)  We've assured our users that APR won't break
compatibility until they jump major version.

So the httpd project will prod us to continue to bug fix both
apr 0.x, and apr 1.x, once they have released some httpd that
is based on 1.x (if they do.)

That's understandable.  But asking about backporting from 1.1.x
to 1.0.x seems somewhat silly.

Bill

At 12:29 PM 12/15/2004, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
>> release of APR 1.0.  Since then there has been a lot of activity in
>> TRUNK as compared to almost no activity in the 1.0.x branch.
>
>After the 1.0.x branch was created at ApacheCon, Justin and Thom
>backported everything that they thought could be backported without
>breaking binary compatibility...
>
>--Cliff