On Jun 2, 2010, at 8:40 PM, Sander Temme wrote: > > On Jun 1, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> Considering that 2.3/trunk is back to limbo-land, I'd like >> to propose that we be more "aggressive" is backporting some >> items. Even if under experimental, it would be nice if slotmem >> and socache were backported. I also like the refactoring of >> the providers for proxy in trunk as compared to 2.2, but >> last time I suggested it, it looked like 2.3/2.4 was close(r) >> to reality... >> >> comments...? > > Amusingly (at least to me), I happened upon an old post by Joel Spolsky from > 2002: > > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/PickingShipDate.html > > "For Systems With Millions of Customers and Millions of Integration Points, > Prefer Rare Releases. You can do it like Apache: one release at the > beginning of the Internet Bubble, and one release at the end. Perfect." > > I personally think we have enough to release for users to chew on: > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/new_features_2_4.html > > PHP should largely move to FastCGI, so module compatibility should not be a > problem. Any idea about other popular modules? WSGI? mod_perl? Are they > ready for HEAD? >
That's a good question, but until we get a version of httpd 2.3/2.4/trunk out in people's hands with some confidence that "what you are testing is pretty close to what it will be, API-wise", we'll never know. If I was just a module developer, I wouldn't be wasting my time following trunk either, due to our track record ;)
