On Jun 3, 2010, at 8:45 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 6/3/2010 9:59 AM, Sander Temme wrote: >> >> On Jun 3, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >>>> 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 ;) >> >> Are we ready to freeze the API? I think that's our Alpha -> Beta transition >> point. > > Freeze? Our versioning policy is and has been, n.odd == unstable, n.even == > stable.
Yep, and now we're working on bringing 2.3/trunk towards 2.4/stable. > Beta could have some extra encouragement to avoid changing the API. Perhaps > chilled over ice? Code Slush, that's where it's at. > Extra assurances things are 'finished'? > > But users will probably react more strongly to '-beta' than they do to > '-alpha', > and will be more likely to participate if their favorite new feature didn't > also become part of 2.2. As Jim pointed out, third party module developers are unlikely to waste cycles until we indicate that we won't pull the rug out from under them API-wise. S. -- Sander Temme [email protected] PGP FP: FC5A 6FC6 2E25 2DFD 8007 EE23 9BB8 63B0 F51B B88A
