Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-perl-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 17538 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2011 04:41:34 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 20 Feb 2011 04:41:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 25739 invoked by uid 500); 20 Feb 2011 04:41:33 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-perl-dev-archive@perl.apache.org Received: (qmail 25566 invoked by uid 500); 20 Feb 2011 04:41:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@perl.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@perl.apache.org Received: (qmail 25559 invoked by uid 99); 20 Feb 2011 04:41:29 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Feb 2011 04:41:29 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [74.125.82.177] (HELO mail-wy0-f177.google.com) (74.125.82.177) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Feb 2011 04:41:22 +0000 Received: by wyf22 with SMTP id 22so5271901wyf.22 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:41:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.27.67 with SMTP id d45mr23839wea.53.1298176862069; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:41:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.66.194 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:41:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D602FE2.8030702@p6m7g8.com> References: <4D600FE4.6090509@p6m7g8.com> <4D602FE2.8030702@p6m7g8.com> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:41:02 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Retiring mod_perl 1.3.x From: Fred Moyer To: "Philip M. Gollucci" Cc: Perrin Harkins , mod_perl Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > On 2/19/2011 2:50 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote: >> I guess my question is how would this be any different from what we're >> doing now? =A0Is anyone actively working on mod_perl 1 development, >> except when a security issue is raised? > Its 'official', good practice, and prudent :) +1 for releasing 1.32 - there is a non security compilation fix, and I'll be committing another change discussed off list. The more I think about it, the less it makes sense to spend tuits on retiring mp 1.3. I would however say that future versions of Apache::Test et al should not need to support mod_perl 1 at the same time as supporting mod_perl2. For instance, the next release of Apache::Reload could be Apache2::Reload. It can use Apache2::Build to do all the mp2 bootstrapping. It is unlikely that someone out on the list will get an itch and fix an issue with Apache::Reload on mod_perl 1 at this point. If they do, the best practice would be to put it in their own repository; I don't see hordes of mp1 contributors suddenly showing up and showering us with patches :) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org