Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 21321 invoked by uid 500); 30 Aug 2002 15:43:32 -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 21305 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2002 15:43:31 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: cancer.clove.org: jerenk set sender to jerenkrantz@apache.org using -f Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:43:33 -0700 From: Justin Erenkrantz To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: 2.0/2.1 split was Re: authn/authz split Message-ID: <20020830154333.GY1657@apache.org> Mail-Followup-To: Justin Erenkrantz , dev@httpd.apache.org References: <20020830064839.GT1657@apache.org> <5.1.0.14.2.20020830095130.031b2108@pop3.rowe-clan.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020830095130.031b2108@pop3.rowe-clan.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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. 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