Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 60289 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2004 20:20:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Aug 2004 20:20:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 66640 invoked by uid 500); 12 Aug 2004 20:20:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 66527 invoked by uid 500); 12 Aug 2004 20:20:46 -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 66511 invoked by uid 99); 12 Aug 2004 20:20:45 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [66.111.4.30] (HELO frontend1.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.30) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:20:44 -0700 X-Sasl-enc: GDjSCzjq5TXK7oFmucddvg 1092342030 Received: from HEC-4949.hec.ca (unknown [132.211.188.107]) by frontend1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CBADC14682; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:20:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:20:23 -0400 (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Est_=28heure_d'=E9t=E9=29?=) From: Joshua Slive To: dev@httpd.apache.org, jim@jaguNET.com Subject: Re: httpd-2.2 release roadmap v0.1 In-Reply-To: <200408122015.i7CKFX323585@devsys.jaguNET.com> Message-ID: References: <200408122015.i7CKFX323585@devsys.jaguNET.com> X-X-Sender: slive@fastmail.fm@mail.messagingengine.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Geoffrey Young wrote: >> >> so, can someone comment on what 2.2 (and the subsequent 2.3) mean for 2.0? >> that is, if everyday hacking is against 2.3 and we propose a new feature to >> backport, do we backport to both 2.2 and 2.0? or does it mean that 2.0 has >> reached end-of-life and we backport only to 2.2? >> >> just so I (and others) know what to expect... :) >> > > I would foresee only 1.3 and 2.2 being around and 2.0 being EOLed. I would hope we could make a statement like: "Major security issues will be addressed in 2.0 until at least [2.2 release date + 1 year]." Joshua.