Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B07C920F for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:17:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 71721 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2012 21:17:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 71667 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2012 21:17:50 -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 71658 invoked by uid 99); 21 Feb 2012 21:17:50 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:17:50 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [188.40.99.202] (HELO eru.sfritsch.de) (188.40.99.202) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:17:42 +0000 Received: from [10.1.1.6] (helo=k.localnet) by eru.sfritsch.de with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Rzx5O-0000L2-FB for dev@httpd.apache.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:17:22 +0100 From: Stefan Fritsch To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Is branches/2.4.x now review-then-commit? Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:17:21 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.0-1-amd64; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201202212217.21784.sf@sfritsch.de> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, I have thought about having some relaxed rules for backports until release of 2.4.2, in order to make fixing the initial bunch of bugs easier. Something like "very simple bug fixes are CTR, the rest is RTC". But I haven't found a wording that would actually provide significant benefit and still make large breakage unlikely. Thoughts? Cheers, Stefan