On Jan 3, 2017 02:19, "Graham Leggett" <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote:
Can you clarify the problem you’re trying to solve? v3.0 and v2.6 are just numbers. For modest changes, we move to v2.6. For a very large architecture change (for example, the addition of filters in v1.x to v2.x), we move to 3.0. Is there a very large architecture change planned by anybody? In my experience, things that felt initially like big changes have actually turned out to be rather modest changes that are still possible to backport to v2.4 without an issue. For this reason I haven’t seen a reason to push very hard for v2.6, never mind v3.0. I do, the very specific problem is that trunk/, and therefore all more-than-modest (or just neglected) contributions are now four years stale and abandoned. A certain way to push off contributors is to ignore their patch submissions. The second method is to commit them to a dead fork. If trunk/ is a dead fork, it may be time for httpd to admit this, trash it and re-fork trunk from 2.4.x branch. Beyond this, see the recent appeal for major.minor breaking change wish list on trunk/STATUS, that is a different thread for you to chime in on. Back to topic, who is interested in a stable release chain, since 2.4.x has not been that?
