httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Pane <>
Subject Re: 2.0/2.1 split was Re: authn/authz split
Date Fri, 30 Aug 2002 18:00:49 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

>On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:17:52AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>>No, that's exactly the problem we have with 1.3 right now. There *are*
>>people who are willing to backport fixes and even features to the 1.3
>>tree, it's only a faction of the group here that *doesn't* want that to
>>happen. I see no reason to close any httpd source tree. If it's just one
>>person complaining that they don't want to backport their changes, then
>>they shouldn't do it. This is a volunteer organization, do only what you
>>want to do, but don't prevent anyone else from have the same abilities.
>Um.  I refuse to get stranded in 2.1 if I'm the only sucker there.
>I don't want to spend *my* time forward-porting fixes because
>everyone else is still on 2.0.  That's a ridiculous waste.  I'd
>be spending all my time merging.

Yeah, that's my biggest concern about a 2.1 branch.  I suspect
that most of the other things in the roadmap file may really
be 2.0 features, even though they're listed as 2.1 and 3.0.
Adding an event-loop MPM, for example, could be a 2.0 feature if
we can make it work without breaking the 2.0 architecture.

>I honestly don't care where this ends up.  It just needs to get
>in to our tree somewhere.  The aaa code is broken.  It needs to
>be fixed (and I believe the patches we already have start the
>process).  2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 1.4 - whatever.  I'm perfectly happy
>to break backwards-compatibility.  -- justin

I wouldn't object to breaking aaa backward compatibility in 2.0,
if it eliminates (for now) the need to start 2.1.


View raw message