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 58D70189AC for ; Wed, 27 May 2015 13:52:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 57037 invoked by uid 500); 27 May 2015 13:52:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 56969 invoked by uid 500); 27 May 2015 13:51:59 -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 56959 invoked by uid 99); 27 May 2015 13:51:59 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 May 2015 13:51:59 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 5F07BC093B for ; Wed, 27 May 2015 13:51:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.899 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.899 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-eu-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zM_MCbU00PB7 for ; Wed, 27 May 2015 13:51:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f50.google.com (mail-qg0-f50.google.com [209.85.192.50]) by mx1-eu-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-eu-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 9040023131 for ; Wed, 27 May 2015 13:51:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qgfa63 with SMTP id a63so3625708qgf.0 for ; Wed, 27 May 2015 06:51:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=WJi9xGSJwj2mxSyYmZ12ENvDm5kLJefgCMwR5fT++pA=; b=POzJOmCkLK64qlkIe+9PGeUFa/eFYNgHqhWzwsUMPpkRpDScoVhZjJp64JC0AsNGSd X6HpxlnwNI+pp6onTkdzxa1grBvL7G+ggVSN/vUyFEXBXmtwgrS5p9/z7VF9vLQ2AAjz Ffr9J3N60fx1JaIw72Po5IOiPWtYxAm80qeLVxt4E9meMmrONQrVp47SAS4ks4bLEe6h 4Mc4MhrZOM0Hr7wa7ZqQ5VCcUU9a7wVXKH6FzZBKo3ON++bzhcqHP87fqcvT+hsteQN0 1gb8rP5+3Ag2kcf3QVckbFqeUp1miZaj11gF31QjatfFBJ7xaljPIZIZgZDYQO9SQEU/ VunA== X-Received: by 10.55.17.95 with SMTP id b92mr51836925qkh.16.1432734708333; Wed, 27 May 2015 06:51:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Eric Covener Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 13:51:46 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 2.2 and 2.4 and 2.6/3.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ad0365901530517108bdd --001a113ad0365901530517108bdd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:55 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: > Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus > on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2 > and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so > it would be nice to focus energy on 2.4 and later... > I think it's an accurate reflection of a mode we're nearly in already, but I think we should still be rolling up security releases of 2.2.x for some time. Is there something between legacy and EOL? Maybe just an announcement and a tweak to the description of 2.2.x? I also think if we choose some middle ground, we don't have to announce with any kind of delay. --001a113ad0365901530517108bdd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, May 27= , 2015 at 8:55 AM Jim Jagielski <jim@= jagunet.com> wrote:
Anyone e= lse think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
it would be nice to focus energy on 2.4 and later...
<= br>I think it's an accurate reflection of a mode we're nearly in al= ready, but I think we should still be rolling up security releases of 2.2.x= for some time.=C2=A0 Is there something between legacy and EOL?=C2=A0 Mayb= e just an announcement and a tweak to the description of 2.2.x?=C2=A0 I als= o think if we choose some middle ground, we don't have to announce with= any kind of delay.
--001a113ad0365901530517108bdd--