httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: 2.0/2.1 split?
Date Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:10:27 GMT
At 10:43 AM 8/30/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:54:45AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > It's time for a 2.1-dev tree, if we want to be playing with new ideas, 
> guys.
> > If they test out clean and don't break compatibility [in any significant
> > way]
> > then they can be backported to 2.0.
>I dislike backporting things.  I think we all need to be on the 'same
>version.'  Heck, we have committers who refuse to use 2.0 ("it's not
>portable").  If we go to 2.1, then I want to see 2.0 closed for
>anything other than security fixes.

or -bug- fixes, surely.  Some can be fixed trivially.  Some need major
restructuring.  Those trivial fixes need to continually go in.  Why do you
suppose -most- of our users upgraded their 1.3.x -> 1.3.26, instead of

Apache 1.3.26 Upgrade(Downgrade) Report

Apache 2.0.39 Upgrade(Downgrade) Report

To summarize, in July;

1,553,930 Apache 1.3.x web sites upgraded to a secure version.

1,547,430 Of those sites upgraded to 1.3.26

6,500 Of those sites upgraded to 2.0.39

Less than 1/2 of 1%.

>I don't think we have enough of a community to continue active
>development on two separate (but similar) trees.  I don't want to
>start 2.1 and still see everyone adding features to 2.0.  -- justin

I don't think we have enough -user- community to continue development
on any Apache 2.x.   UNLESS we reconsider what we are doing wrong.
Breaking our users on every bugfix/point release would be a good start.
Seeing the successful completion of the PHP/Perl compatibility would
be a good finish.


View raw message