On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> No need to go off... Did I? > 2.2 has been out for almost 10 years. > Irrelevant to the discussion... > 2.4 for a bit over 3. That is a LONG time. Specifically, http://svn.apache.org/r1243503 Generally unusable, the next several versions fixed the serious regressions and we had a pretty solid release by 2.4.3/2.4.4 timetable (about 2 1/2 years ago). Given the lag between a release, incorporating it into an alpha of a distribution release, and that distribution going GA, that is a long lag. Ubuntu - 14.04 LTS, and Debian 8 (Jessie) got the message, a year ago April. RHEL / CentOS 7 aren't even a year old yet. OpenSUSE 13.1 beat them all to the punch, back in Nov of '13. So that's the oldest distribution GA that I've found, perhaps Fedora beat that? So your 'over 3 years' is a pretty gross exaggeration if you are speaking of "users" as people who get httpd from their OS distribution. > I'm simply > *suggesting* (no BDFL posturing Mr. Rowe) that after 10 > years, maybe it's time to say that 2.2's era is done, and > 2.4's time is here, if not already past. And the empirical data says, nope. Nearly 80% of installed httpd is still 2.2. RedHat and the others all have years ahead supporting httpd-2.2. Your suggestion is duly noted and filed :) > I'm simply trying > to encourage us to work on the future and not "focus" on > the past. No need to read anything more into that, or > take on a onerous or holier-than-thou tone. > By which your message might be perceived as taking a holier-than-thou tone. Since neither of us would do that, let's move on :) So folks (who don't build themselves) have only had 11 - 18 months to start picking up httpd 2.4, that doesn't seem like the distant past to me, and seems like forever ago to you, that's fine. We are an association of peers with different interests and responsibilities, and have different perspectives on our end user communities. Everything we can do to help them move forward is great. If the insist on running httpd 2.4 on Ubuntu 12.04-LTS or RHEL 5, well... the wiki especially could offer help with that. There are already per-architecture notes and wiki pages. Hopefully they adopt a modern operating system and modern releases of Apache projects across the board. My apologies if "Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus > on 2.4 and the next gen?" was such an egregious question! > Shame on me for even asking! :) Ask away! Below was the discussion result last month. I'd expect this to be brought up monthly until "maintainers" get bored with the dialog and an EOL is pushed through :) On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:28:35 +1000 > Noel Butler <noel.but...@ausics.net> wrote: > > > > Time to think about EOL'ing 2.2 maybe since its 10 years old and 2.4 > > has been current stable best production recommendation for what, > > about 3.5 years or so now, that would see adoption rates grow ;) > > That would be altogether reasonable, if the currently adopted and still > widely supported operating systems shipped 2.4, but it isn't so. While > the adoption of 2.2 is all tied into current operating systems, we > aren't about to forego security patches to such widely used code. > > Something to rethink when 2.4 starts to seriously catch up and surpass > the 2.2 deployments. > > The EOL of 2.2 will occur, just as with 2.0, and with 1.3, when you can > no longer find a subset of the httpd project members and committers to > do any maintenance for the branch. I'm guessing that the inflection > point is much closer to 2 years away than 12 months from now. > >
