At 10:08 AM 11/22/2004, Bill Stoddard wrote: >William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>At 08:23 AM 11/20/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >>>On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >>> >>>>So, my opinion is that we let Allen branch apr off now and let him go at it >>>>at a measured pace, but we shouldn't intend to hold httpd 2.2 for that. -- >>>>justin >>> >>>+1. Of course, I am assuming that his 64bit fixes will likely >>>break binary compatibility. >> >>It does - that's the rub. And, for 2.2, this was always the plan. > >And that's precisely the reason we should attack the 64 bit problem for 2.2. >This will give the 2.2 series a much longer life than if we push off the 64 >bit work to 2.4.
+1 - well said. By the way, Allen was out for the week of AC but returns this week, perhaps he can jump back into this conversation. Yes - I understand that this means 1.x will never be used by httpd. Version numbers are cheap. The APR project should become used to this, if they are active, and httpd moves at it's normal pace, it would be easy to go through APR 2.x, 3.x, and land somewhere in version 4.x by the time httpd 2.4 or 3.0 walks out the door. Bill
