Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <200409081223.i88CNUJ15164@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: Time for 1.3.32 ?
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 08:23:26 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: jim@jaguNET.com
In-Reply-To: <20040908132340.000032d3@fe-pc-092.int.cinetic.de> from
 "=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andr=E9?= Malo" at Sep 08, 2004 01:23:40 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andr=E9?= Malo wrote:
> 
> * Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> 
> > In general, people don't look for 1.3 patches in the 2.0 STATUS file
> > and vice-versa :)
> 
> As far as I can see, the current way to make changes is 2.1 -> 2.0 -> 1.3.
> So it makes sense for me to look into 2.0 for possible 1.3 changes, but not
> vice versa ;-)
> 

That's true... now that we're opening 1.3 back up for some
development/enhancements, looking into stuff that was added
in 2.x and whether they make sense (or are feasible) for 1.3
is a good idea. However, not everyone who works on 1.3 also
follows 2.0 or even bothers with the 2.x CVS, so they will
not be following 1.3 specific stuff in the 2.x STATUS file.
1.3 has its own STATUS file which should be used.

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
             will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson