> A transition makes sense to me. If we *really* need to maintain > multiple versions (as with the JVM), then that's a separate path. I'd > hope we don't have to do that, as it's a lot of baggage to carry > around.
As someone else mentioned, it was my understanding that we needed to keep Apache 1 around at for awhile due to some other dependencies on it. For Apache 2, I believe making this transition of 2.0 -> 2.2.4 in Nevada is appropriate (again, the case in question was strictly done with minor release binding in mind) as along as appropriate notification is done through the Solaris 10 and Solaris Express release notes (notification of the EOL in the former, notification of the EOF in the latter). dsc
