Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of
 michaelm12-asfbugzilla@aquaorange.net designates 82.68.126.114 as permitted
 sender)
Message-ID: <51D2E1BD.6050101@aquaorange.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 15:20:45 +0100
From: MikeM <michaelm12-asfbugzilla@aquaorange.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [discussion] Release 2.0.65 [the final frontier]
References: 
 <20130701164719.ec908e91c20de17e6e448089a4bc3ed2.6bf7abf572.wbe@email11.secureserver.net>
 <51D2C235.1030000@apache.org> <51D2CD35.707@aquaorange.net>
 <CAKUrXK4F1zRSpKAg-jmWGtubv5ZM99xn4hBS=jVbJ-7A=nTWcg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKUrXK4F1zRSpKAg-jmWGtubv5ZM99xn4hBS=jVbJ-7A=nTWcg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------060901090809000005010607"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060901090809000005010607
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi

Oh I see - I had not realised this. In that case, I agree that sticking 
with 0.9.x is the only sensible option at this point in time :)

Mike

On 02/07/2013 14:35, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:53 AM, MikeM 
> <michaelm12-asfbugzilla@aquaorange.net 
> <mailto:michaelm12-asfbugzilla@aquaorange.net>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Maybe the simple option is to do the final release with the
>     old/existing bundled APR, but put a foot note in the release notes
>     that the newer APR v1.4.8/1.5.2 has been confirmed to successfully
>     work with 2.0.65. This way it may give confidence to anyone who is
>     stuck on 2.0.x for some reason to use the newer APR/APR-util if
>     needs be.
>
>
> APR/APR-util 1.x won't work with httpd 2.0.x.  Someone continuing to 
> use 2.0.x will need to hand-pick or backport fixes from apr/apr-util 
> 0.9.x or later levels.  But then they'll have to backport fixes from 
> httpd too.  The line was drawn at slightly different places for httpd 
> vs. apr/apr-util, but the long term picture is the same: There is 
> effort to remain on httpd 2.0.x if you want to pick up any code fixes, 
> and the recommendation is clear.
>
>
>
>     Regards,
>     Mike
>
>
>     On 02/07/2013 13:06, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>
>         Hi Bill,
>         On 02.07.2013 01:47, wrowe@rowe-clan.net
>         <mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>             I am not at all concerned
>             whether APR 0.9 is
>             released again or not since folks had years to take that
>             up in our
>             discussions of
>             putting httpd 2.0 to bed, yet nobody so much as suggested
>             a release,
>             nevermind some
>             volunteer to act on it.
>
>         true; but I thought that most of us probably forgot about that
>         we bundle APR/APU with 2.0.x - like I did; the lack of APR/APU
>         fixes came only to my attention when I was on building the
>         2.0.65 binaries ...
>         but since nobody else expressed an oppinion about then thats
>         fine, and I shut up.
>
>             or if you have concurred with the group consensus to let
>             this story end
>             as of Jun 2013.
>
>         I have. Just did put the NetWare bins up; go ahead and release.
>
>         G�n.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Born in Roswell... married an alien...
> http://emptyhammock.com/


--------------060901090809000005010607
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    Hi<br>
    <br>
    Oh I see - I had not realised this. In that case, I agree that
    sticking with 0.9.x is the only sensible option at this point in
    time :)<br>
    <br>
    Mike<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/07/2013 14:35, Jeff Trawick
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAKUrXK4F1zRSpKAg-jmWGtubv5ZM99xn4hBS=jVbJ-7A=nTWcg@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:53 AM, MikeM <span
          dir="ltr">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:michaelm12-asfbugzilla@aquaorange.net"
            target="_blank">michaelm12-asfbugzilla@aquaorange.net</a>&gt;</span>
        wrote:<br>
        <div class="gmail_extra">
          <div class="gmail_quote">
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
              .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
              <br>
              Maybe the simple option is to do the final release with
              the old/existing bundled APR, but put a foot note in the
              release notes that the newer APR v1.4.8/1.5.2 has been
              confirmed to successfully work with 2.0.65. This way it
              may give confidence to anyone who is stuck on 2.0.x for
              some reason to use the newer APR/APR-util if needs be.<br>
            </blockquote>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>APR/APR-util 1.x won't work with httpd 2.0.x. &nbsp;Someone
              continuing to use 2.0.x will need to hand-pick or backport
              fixes from apr/apr-util 0.9.x or later levels. &nbsp;But then
              they'll have to backport fixes from httpd too. &nbsp;The line
              was drawn at slightly different places for httpd vs.
              apr/apr-util, but the long term picture is the same: There
              is effort to remain on httpd 2.0.x if you want to pick up
              any code fixes, and the recommendation is clear.</div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
              .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <br>
              Regards,<br>
              Mike
              <div class="HOEnZb">
                <div class="h5"><br>
                  <br>
                  On 02/07/2013 13:06, Guenter Knauf wrote:<br>
                  <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                    .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                    Hi Bill,<br>
                    On 02.07.2013 01:47, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                      href="mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net" target="_blank">wrowe@rowe-clan.net</a>
                    wrote:<br>
                    <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                      .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                      I am not at all concerned<br>
                      whether APR 0.9 is<br>
                      released again or not since folks had years to
                      take that up in our<br>
                      discussions of<br>
                      putting httpd 2.0 to bed, yet nobody so much as
                      suggested a release,<br>
                      nevermind some<br>
                      volunteer to act on it.<br>
                    </blockquote>
                    true; but I thought that most of us probably forgot
                    about that we bundle APR/APU with 2.0.x - like I
                    did; the lack of APR/APU fixes came only to my
                    attention when I was on building the 2.0.65 binaries
                    ...<br>
                    but since nobody else expressed an oppinion about
                    then thats fine, and I shut up.<br>
                    <br>
                    <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                      .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                      or if you have concurred with the group consensus
                      to let this story end<br>
                      as of Jun 2013.<br>
                    </blockquote>
                    I have. Just did put the NetWare bins up; go ahead
                    and release.<br>
                    <br>
                    G&uuml;n.<br>
                    <br>
                    <br>
                    <br>
                  </blockquote>
                  <br>
                </div>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
          <br>
          <br clear="all">
          <div><br>
          </div>
          -- <br>
          Born in Roswell... married an alien...<br>
          <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://emptyhammock.com/"
            target="_blank">http://emptyhammock.com/</a><br>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------060901090809000005010607--