> On 19 Apr 2018, at 21:35, David Zuelke <dzue...@salesforce.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:55 AM, David Zuelke <dzue...@salesforce.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I hate to break this to you, and I do not want to discredit the >>> amazing work all the contributors here are doing, but httpd 2.4 is of >>> miserable, miserable quality when it comes to breaks and regressions. >>> >> >> Gee Thanks! That is an amazing compliment to be sure. I have >> NO idea how ANYONE could take that in any way as discrediting >> the work being done. >> >> Sarcasm aside, could we do better? Yes. Can we do better? Yes. >> Should we do better? Yes. Will we do better? Yes. >> >> BTW, you DID see how h2 actually came INTO httpd, didn't you?? > > Of course, but that's exactly my point. It was introduced not in > 2.4.0, but in 2.4.17. Five "H2…" config directives are available in > 2.4.18+ only, one in 2.4.19+, and three in 2.4.24+. > > I'm not saying no directives should ever be added in point releases or > anything, but the constant backporting of *features* to 2.4 has > contributed to the relatively high number of regressions, and to a > lack of progress on 2.6/3.0, because, well, if anything can be put > into 2.4.next, why bother? > > David
What’s the rule for *features*? - Mark
