Graham Leggett wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> * including those backports, is 1.4.0 ready, or do we need to revert
>> API's which are not sufficiently thought out? The apr_crypto interfaces
>> were rejected at 1.3.0, and it would be time to reopen that discussion.
>
> The apr_crypto interfaces were rejected at v1.3.0, completely thrown out
> and rewritten from scratch specifically addressing the original issues
> with v1.3.0.
>
> The reasons for the original v1.3.0 objections have been gone for a very
> long time.
Agreed, and which is entirely my point; that code review passed, and the new code
hadn't actually been sufficiently reviewed. Just pointing this out to encourage
people to thoroughly review the new API.
>> * a larger question, is 2.0.0 ready? Are there additional API improvements
>> required to call it baked? Does it fix enough awkward bugs in the static
>> 1.x.x API's to suggest that users move over already? If 2.0.0 is ready,
>> I can see wisdom in not pushing out a 1.4 at all.
>
> The LDAP issue in v2.0 needs fixing, and that needs to be done properly,
> not rushed for the benefit of getting httpd out the door.
Correct, so as we previously agreed, apr_ldap would be dropped from 2.0 if the
project wishes to move ahead.
> Whatever mistakes we make in v2.0 will have to wait till v3.0 to be fixed.
Agreed.
|