On Dec 9, 2016 21:56, "Daniel Ruggeri" <drugg...@primary.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2016 8:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Instead, maybe we could backport all that stuff to 2.4, in a backwards > compatible fashion. That is, basically backport trunk to 2.4. This > would give us more runway to work on httpd-nextgen. > > Thoughts? Considering a lot of the changes in trunk, I'm not entirely sure it can be backported without creating some code maintenance challenges... I agree about the concern w/ branching so I guess it's really a matter of weighing the benefits - are there *enough* features to be worthy of a release, have we reached API stability to make it worth it and do we lose anything in our "sandbox" by doing this? Pressed for a response, I'd lean towards probably not but it's not a terribly strong opinion. It's also not unprecedented to have three major versions in play, too. It's been announced that 2.2 is on the "EOL" track with most folks interested in maintaining that branch in the 12 to 18 month range (June - Dec 2017ish). So, that said, it wouldn't be a super long time we maintain three branches... a year-ish from now. If that. Midyear is the 2.2 EOL. Patches for key security defects may be offered for a while longer, but no release votes. 3.0 isn't 'ready' but won't become ready unless we make an investment in alpha / beta releases and start breaking some eggs to move in that direction. Will it take 2 mos or 6 mos? Time will tell, but I would take the odds that we bless the next major GA release pretty close to the end of 2.2's lifespan, if we start now.
