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. >
I agree... Otherwise, we won't see many people move to 2.2 since 3rd party modules won't be available for it, since module developers will know that within a "short" amount of time, they'll need to "redo" their modules for the 64bit fixes. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else."
