Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 28749 invoked from network); 7 May 2008 12:26:58 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 May 2008 12:26:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 69316 invoked by uid 500); 7 May 2008 12:26:57 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 68848 invoked by uid 500); 7 May 2008 12:26:56 -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: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 68837 invoked by uid 99); 7 May 2008 12:26:56 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 May 2008 05:26:56 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.133.199.10] (HELO jimsys.jaguNET.com) (209.133.199.10) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 May 2008 12:26:03 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jimsys.jaguNET.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 415ED150614B for ; Wed, 7 May 2008 08:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <99387E18-09C8-4855-B33B-1E3828509783@jaguNET.com> From: Jim Jagielski To: dev@httpd.apache.org In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Subject: Re: 2.2.9 Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 08:26:24 -0400 References: <4819B3C6.2070100@apache.org> <083A9E22-E740-4556-8D6F-B9A560D0F426@jaguNET.com> <20080506234525.7cb475e9@grimnir> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On May 7, 2008, at 6:51 AM, Niklas Edmundsson wrote: > On Tue, 6 May 2008, Nick Kew wrote: > >>> 2. Consensus on whether we ship with APR 1.2.x or 1.3.x... >>> My pref would be 1.3. >> >> -1. > > I tend to agree with NOT shipping 1.3. > This goes w/o saying, but I'll do so anyway. If 1.3.0 is not ready for prime time, then (1) we assume that APR will not tag and release it and (2) we do not bundle httpd 2.2.9 with it. This does not mean that later versions of 2.2.x won't ship with it. With our httpd hat on, we do what's best for httpd, even if that means we don't "push" APR ;)