[Context: we are discussing the creation of an APACHE_2_0_RELEASE branch and forking off API-breaking changes to a 2.1-dev branch. Greg's question goes to APR, which is why it's cc'ed. Please keep this cross posted thread about how Apache and APR versioning interact on topic :-]
At 11:01 AM 11/8/2002, Greg Ames wrote: > What about apr? the same? No. APR isn't Apache, nor should it be. I see the following happening to APR; * Tag APACHE_2_0_44 just as we've done for every release *thus far*. * Fork APACHE_2_0_BRANCH only within the httpd-2.0. Now; once the APR project reaches 1.0, we can consider releasing 2.2. APR will be following it's own well-defined versioning contract with developers. Any Apache 2.2+ will build under any APR 1.x until *we* decide to break binary compatibility with APR 1.n-1 or prior (when we choose to use some new API introduced in 1.n.) If that breaks our long-term compatibility goals, we can always kick off 2.4, requiring the given APR 1.n. This probably won't be required since the Apache project hasn't put forward any forward compatibility guidelines. Our APACHE_2_0_BRANCH may always use an APR 0.9.x. If a security patch requires an update to that 'final release' of APR 0.9.x, we can all decide what to do about it then (perhaps create a maintenance fork from APR 0.9.x.) And the final option once APR is at 1.0 is to release an APR 1.0 release of Apache 2.0.x. We would break our own versioning rules for the 2.0.x series, but folks haven't come to expect much stability out of 2.0 in the first place. If the APR project didn't believe it was close-ish to the 1.0 release, the entire Apache versioning proposal wouldn't even be on the table :-) Bill
