Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 93771 invoked by uid 500); 18 Oct 2002 01:57:40 -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 93743 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2002 01:57:38 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021017205116.03954e68@pop3.rowe-clan.net> X-Sender: admin%rowe-clan.net@pop3.rowe-clan.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 20:53:28 -0500 To: dev@httpd.apache.org From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." Subject: Re: A suggested ROADMAP for working 2.1/2.2 forward? Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021017110726.0321d818@pop3.rowe-clan.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2002 01:57:34.0218 (UTC) FILETIME=[B9D43EA0:01C27649] X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N At 05:47 PM 10/17/2002, Andrew Ho wrote: >I personally think maintaining stable/dev branches is a fine idea. I like >the x.0 rationale for keeping even numbered versions development, and it >also fits with Apache 1.3.x... but I also think it could be confusing if >many other open source projects use odd numbered versions for development >and Apache is the exception. And while I'm not by any means a core Apache >developer I agree it seems a little premature to vote on this change right >this instant. The ROADMAP is progressing, but that doesn't mean it will ever be adopted. Obviously everyone doesn't have cycles right now, or wants to see what direction folks are trying to take this. It needs some discussion. The critical juncture comes up when someone wants to pull a release. Since that is a few weeks off, I don't think we will jump to premature judgement, but make sure that everyone is heard over the next week or few. Bill