> On Apr 20, 2018, at 1:08 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > Let me counter with this... Rather than break the API every m.n release, what > if we roll on to 2.6 with no ABI breakage, or resolve with impumity > everything wrong in 3.0 with a firm commitment not to break it again till 4.0?
Doesn't that break our understanding/"contract" with all external module developers and ISV? Up until now, minor has always indicated ABI changes which means, real world, you need to provide a different module build for each minor version. Now we would be saying "Nope, not in this case" That seems, to me, worse than what we have now. Plus, it does nothing to satisfy the concerns about "quality" of what is released in any way. Again, IMO, it's not about numbers, or what we call it, for US. It about QA, testing and being more sensitive to regression and wholesale refactoring on stuff that is going to be released. Where numbers and versioning DOES matter is how it affects distributors and vendors of httpd and the entire module eco-system. Just my 2c
