On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:09 AM, Nick Kew <n...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 1 Dec 2016, at 04:23, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > > > Even as httpd is operating under paralysis by analysis, we are long past > a year since the last releases. > > > > Is there anything holding up the jumps to 1.6, or 2.0? > > > > I'd personally like to see an API harmonising memcache to redis, but > that can't possibly be a showstopper to any incremental release. > > > > If nobody else offers, I'll T&R 1.6 objects in 72 or so hours for a > vote, alongside the first 2.0 RC. > > > > Feedback welcomed. > > OK, now I recollect why the only APR I’ve touched in years is trunk. > The 1.x APR/APR_UTIL tree appears to be in limbo, with no trunk of its own. > We have branches/1.6 serving as a trunk-substitute, and 1.5 in an > indeterminate > state (Is it active? Are backports relevant? Is that tumbleweed in the > cracks?) > > Bill, I take it branches/1.6 is the current focus for all backports? >
/repos/asf/apr/apr/trunk is 2.0, yes /repos/asf/apr/apr-util/trunk is dead (merged into apr/trunk/) /repos/asf/apr/apr/branches/1.5.x is current /repos/asf/apr/apr/branches/1.6.x is next /repos/asf/apr/apr-util/branches/1.5.x is current /repos/asf/apr/apr-util/branches/1.6.x is next The only reason I see for a 1.5.x release would be a security fix, but provided we have no regression reports building 1.6.x, it won't be necessary to backport those to 1.5.x IMO. Is anyone taking an interest in updating the website to reflect where we are > and reduce confusion? If not, I’ll have a go. > I have a few too many other things on my plate a.t.m. but am happy to review edits.
