Jim Jagielski wrote: > Well, that's the question, isn't it? I can't align the idea > of trunk being a candidate for 2.4 and trunk being a place for > people to experiment... > > What do we want 2.4 to be and do. And how. > > Once we define (and agree) to that, we know how close (or far) > trunk is. It sounds like we have some set that wants to break > trunk apart and totally refactor a lot of it, and that's a big +1. > It's also not a 3-4 month effort :) It also sounds like there > are people who want 2.4 to be an upgrade to 2.2 as 2.2 was compared > to 2.4, and a big +1 to that as well. But BOTH of these are using > the exact same dev branch, and there's no general agreement on which > we want... if you get my point ;)
I think the bit that divides these in two is APR v2.0. People have begun refactoring APR to produce APR v2.0, and alongside this will be a corresponding refactoring of httpd, that I think should be httpd v3.0. I think httpd v2.4 should be what we have now, against the latest APR v1 we have now, which is the APR v1.4 branch. I think practically we should focus on getting httpd v2.4 out the door, and make httpd ready for v3.0 to happen, against APR v2.0. Regards, Graham --
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
