httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG
Date Wed, 18 Jan 2017 23:12:14 GMT
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Graham Leggett <minfrin@sharp.fm> wrote:
> On 03 Jan 2017, at 2:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>> So I'd like to know, in light of a perpetual chain of (often build and/or run-time
breaking regression) enhancements, if there is support for a 2.4.24.x release chain during
the 3.0 transition? And support for potentially 3x backports to 2.4.x, 2.4.24.x and 2.2.x,
of really serious bug fixes?
>>
>> It's clear this project doesn't agree, so the question twists to how we agree to
disagree.
>
> Can you clarify the problem you’re trying to solve?

There are multiple recent breakages in httpd. The backport proposal to 2.4
extending mod_dav would have introduced yet another. Other features on
the table such as proxy protocol enhancement, or mod_status extensions
all introduce more and more opportunities to introduce yet another release
with regressions.

I'm wondering if there is anyone interested in a regression-fix-only 2.4.26 that
finally proves to be a workable upgrade for all httpd users? Only bug fixes
which correct defects introduced during 2.4.x would be addressed. Then
skip on to 2.4.27 with new regressions, and repeat the mop-up process in
2.4.28, etc.

Most projects would call these 2.5.0 new features, 2.5.x regression and
bug fixes, 2.6.0 new features, 2.6.x regression and bug fixes etc.

But httpd seems to want to keep a unique numbering schema, because
other numbering conventions weren't invented here.

Is it really unreasonable to expect subsequent releases to not introduce
new errors and become more error-free between enchancement releases?

Mime
View raw message