Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: 2.6/3.0
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsi2508gfm7FTUioLBg+mZkxzky3h4ZTZcZCPf+WusRvb7wzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:29:18 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <28C6AFD5-1BF0-4295-94F6-2B54EAD215E1@jaguNET.com>
References: <42F00816-7022-4C62-B408-ACB2E64C21A3@jaguNET.com> <CACsi2508gfm7FTUioLBg+mZkxzky3h4ZTZcZCPf+WusRvb7wzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
archived-at: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:31:31 -0000


> On Dec 9, 2016, at 5:24 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> 
>  
> Instead, maybe we could backport all that stuff to 2.4, in a backwards
> compatible fashion. That is, basically backport trunk to 2.4. This
> would give us more runway to work on httpd-nextgen.
> 
> That is very unrealistic, given that the trunk patches have broken
> ABI more than once a month for four years. Adapting such patches
> would lead to many more inane forks like the HttpProtocol Strict 
> backport effort.
> 

Well, instead of just throwing one's hands up and saying "That
is very unrealistic" I am sure that there are some among us
who instead are obstructionists, actually want to drive this
project further along and would, as I explicitly state, try to
figure out some way of doing so in a "backwards compatible
fashion."