httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jim Jagielski"<...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Post 2.4.25
Date Sat, 24 Dec 2016 03:58:44 GMT
Well, since I am actively working on trunk, I am obviously interested in seeing continued work
being done on it and the work being usable to our users in a timely fashion. Since backports
to 2.2 have not affected work on 2.4 or trunk, it is obvious as well that any backport efforts
for 2.4 won't be any issue at all, so work on trunk will be unrestricted. I hope your enthusiasm
regarding timeframes is warranted and accurate. Obviously my efforts are directed towards
what is best for our community and am looking forward to how we continue with next gen. 

On 2016-12-23 17:50 (-0500), William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote: 
> Just a couple quick thoughts...
> 
> On Dec 23, 2016 2:55 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> As I have also stated, my personal belief is that
> 2.4 is finally reaching some traction, and if we
> "turn off" development/enhancement of 2.4, we will
> stop the uptake of 2.4 in its track.
> 
> 
> I think you might be misconstruing our flaws in httpd with our version
> numbering scheme.
> 
> There is only one other project with our longevity that refuses to bump
> version majors, and they are suddenly 2 versions ahead of us in only a few
> short years. If you haven't guessed, that's the Linux Kernel.
> 
> 
> . We need to keep
> 2.4 viable and worthwhile
> 
> 
> So long as we fix the bugs, it is.
> 
> Maybe the whole thing revolves around us mistakenly
> using the term "2.6/3.0"...
> 
> 
> I ceased doing this. After another admonishment that version numbers are
> cheap, and out team's concensus that treating r->uri as a decoded value was
> a wrong call, we won't have a release that can be called 2.next.
> 
> During its incubation of alphas and betas, it still remains 2.5.x, but on
> completion I can't imagine calling this 2.6. This will be a fundamental
> change that requires a 3.0 designation.
> 
> I don't see us taking shortcuts to get to that point, but believe it is a
> change that will occur in a very short timespan, because several committers
> want to see this happen.
> 
> So long as it is foretold that nobody is blocking 3.0, unlike 3 years ago,
> I expect that sort of energy and enthusiasm to take hold toward a GA
> release in the next six months, if we don't get bogged down in more
> backport type of activity.
> 

Mime
View raw message