httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 STATUS
Date Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:02:33 GMT
At 07:45 AM 10/28/2002, Greg Stein wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>...
>> We need matching apr and apr-util trees which are just as stable.

++1 :-)

>> That isn't necessarily what apr needs as it gears up for 1.0.
>
>Note that APR has already decided on a versioning scheme (insofar as any
>decision is firm for longer than a few months :-).

Correct... APR is well on its way to releasing 1.0, in fact, IIRC the big
showstopper is finishing the versioning API and some stand-alone build
details.

>HTTPD should pick a version of APR and stick with that. In particular, it
>should stop trying to include the latest CVS into its source tree. As
>APR(UTIL) has stabilized, there is less and less of a reason for HTTPD to
>track HEAD. Of course, if HTTPD requires a change in APR(UTIL), then the
>right people can apply the patch, crank out a new dot release, and then you
>bounce the min requirement for APR(UTIL) in the HTTPD bits.

If we maintain backwards compat, HTTPD_2_0_RELEASE will always hang
out back in APR_0_9_final.  httpd can continue to trust the APR api through
the end of this cycle.

APR 1.0 flushes away all the deprecated APIs.  This is why I suspect that
httpd 2.2.0 release would coincide with the APR 1.0 release.  The library
project has rules defined on forwards and backwards compatibility once the
APR 1.0 point occurs.

Bill


Mime
View raw message