On 6/1/2010 11:08 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...?
I'd be strongly opposed to releasing all this refactoring of the proxy suite, etc, into the 2.2 tree. Not because of binary compatibility, but because users have certain expectations when they move from x.y.15 to x.y.16 that nothing much has changed, it's just lots of fixes. And if your backport ideas include a lot of config changes, well that further breaks the users expectations. To accomplish what you like, if we collectively believe trunk has stalled, would be to bump trunk to 2.5, and cross-pollinate a new 2.3 branch that can move forwards towards release. I'd like to see what can be accomplished with trunk over the next few weeks, and what agreements the project can come to, before we take such a radical step as branching two development lines. If bits of trunk that concern people can be sandboxed for the moment, instead, that might be less pain.
