Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 43982 invoked by uid 500); 26 Feb 2002 11:30:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 43963 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2002 11:30:41 -0000 X-Curiosity: Killed the Cat X-Huis-aan-Huis-deur-sticker: nee-nee X-Spam: no X-Passed: MX on Gandalf.WebWeaving.org Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:05:05 +0100 (CET) and masked X-No-Spam: Neither the receipients nor the senders email address(s) are to be used for Unsolicited (Commercial) Email without the explicit written consent of either party; as a per-message fee is incurred for inbound and outbound traffic to the originator. Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:05:05 +0100 (CET) From: dirkx@covalent.net X-X-Sender: dirkx@gandalf.webweaving.org To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: daemontools/foreground support in 1.3.* In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Lars Eilebrecht wrote: > According to Justin Erenkrantz: > > > -0. I personally believe that this shouldn't be backported. If > > you want this, you should use 2.0. > > I tend to agree. -0 from me as well. > > There will always be a nice feature which could be backported, > but IMHO we should avoid it unless there is a _very_ good reason. A good reason is: "_I_ need it". Or in other words - if there are volunteers/folks who want a specific feature in 1.3 -and- are willing to work on it and maintain it; I'd be loath to get in their way. Standing in the way of honest people who have to get their days work done (and who for some arcane reason are tied to 1.3) fo the sake of 'forcing' the world to 2.0 is not the right thing. Apache is tied into too many operations systems for those sort of upgrade tactics to be effective. Gradually 2.0 will be picked up by peple when 2.0 is ready for the world at large and people are ready for 2.0. For those in that ops space - 2.0 has got enough qualities to make it there on its own accord (flexible child/process management, filters, binary compatibility, can I make you drule even more ?) But making things painfull by -and- allow the closing down of 1.3 forcefully -and- 2.0 being a moving target is not the right thing. A '-0' or '-1' should be given for more technical reasons in my opinion. And for those simply not interested in the 1.3 branch - then do not vote or give it a '0'. FreeBSD's 'release' and 'current' and the MFC merging has always seemed like the right thing to me. Dw