Subject: Re: [STATUS] Fri Jun  6 08:12:55 EDT 1997
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 17:36:04 +0100 (BST)
From: Ben Laurie <ben@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970606103940.23128A-100000@valis.worldgate.com>
 from "Marc Slemko" at Jun 6, 97 10:41:44 am
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <9706061736.aa25107@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, sameer wrote:
> 
> > > Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > > >  * Debate branching
> > > 
> > > Hasn't that bit finished?
> > 
> > 	My fear about making 1.3 the head is that 2.0 will not happen
> > if we do that.
> > 
> > 	If the 1.3 agenda is *SOLELY* integrating NT support, then
> > that would be ok, and we can't allow *ANY* other changes. (Other than
> > 1.2.x bugfixes.)
> 
> I don't want to have three trees around.  
> 
> I don't pay much attention to the NT stuff; how involved is NT support?
> Could it not go in 1.2.x?  To avoid having three trees, 1.2 would have to
> die a quick death in favor of 1.3 anyway...  

It would be a bad idea to put it in 1.2.x - this would destroy our ability to
rapidly bugfix 1.2. I'd assume that 1.3 would have a reasonably fast release
cycle, at which point we'd stop messing with 1.2.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie                Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435  Email: ben@algroup.co.uk
Freelance Consultant and  Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director        URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
A.L. Digital Ltd,         Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org)
London, England.          Apache-SSL author