On Nov 12, 2003, at 8:51 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I think our changes that we already have in the tree is about 'right' for 2.2 (no big architecture changes, but lots of modules have been rewritten and improved). It's just that no one has time or desire to shepherd 2.2 to a release. And, I think we need APR 1.0 out the door before 2.2 can be rationally discussed.
If we did any major changes from this point that require modules to rewrite themselves, we'd need to go to 3.0 per our versioning rules. And, I'd *strongly* discourage that. I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to revamp our architecture at this stage.
We don't need to give a moving target to our poor module developers. Only by producing a series of high-quality releases can we ensure that module writers will be confident in writing against 2.0 or 2.2. If we come out with 3.x now, I think we'll just end up hurting ourselves in the long run even worse than we are now. -- justin
Another point to consider... With 2.2, module writers will need to worry about *3* versions of Apache. Commercial entities which have *just* gotten around to porting their 1.3 modules for 2.0 will likely not bother with 2.2 modules for awhile.
There's no easy answer... Maybe dev on 2.0 is "slow" simply because it's "obvious" that it's a dead end. Once 2.1 happened, there was a real concern in putting effort into 2.0 because the gravestone was already being carved for it.
I do think that some sort of improved communication between bugs and developers would be good. In general, once a developer is aware of a bug and/or patch, things get done.
