At 04:22 PM 8/30/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote: >Ian Holsman wrote: > > > > what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting > > out to a 2.1 tree > >++1
So... for the next couple months, we grind new ideas and development to a halt (as things were when I got here in the spring of 2000), until the powers that be sanctify a new tree? Gunter hit this dead-on. As long as module developers can't keep up we will have very little traction on 2.0. As soon as we quit changing things, and let folks be creative in a 2.1 branch, module developer's heads will quit spinning so quickly. Of course we will ask authors to keep an eye on where 2.1 goes, so it serves the needs of their modules as well as users. In fact, if a module author begged for a certain changes to the API, 2.1 is where we could make their lives simpler. But folks need stable code in their hands. My first itch is fixing 2.0 bugs. In the 2.0 tree, of course. My second itch is to help out porting apreq to Apache 2.0, and allow polling on filter chains for true async CGI. But all of that will lead to rethinking input filtering with Aaron, Justin and others, and come up with a better plan. Scratching input filter redesign doesn't belong in 2.0 and is unfair to our module authors. Bill
