Is anyone else disappointed in the number of regressions in 2.4.35? Is anyone else interested in releasing 2.4.36 promptly with no new features or enhancements which may cause 2.4.36 to be similarly unusable? Which backports or reversions of new code are still needed to get to that point?
It appears 2.4.35 is unusable, as other distributors also paused to start hauling in regression fixes as they become clear, to make some sort of usable 2.4.35.1 private label source and binary packages, each one different than another. There is no corresponding source release from the ASF; that's a problem. And if it continues, that's a board level problem. If distributors continue to ship a usable 2.4.x to end users, while the ASF does not, we fail in our mission of delivering open *source* to our community at no charge, and our claim that the current release of 2.4.x is the best available version. Suggestions such as below are what I'm suggesting be frozen out of the release branch in the short term, until we have one GA-quality point release for users to consume. On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 7:54 AM, <j...@apache.org> wrote: > Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/ > STATUS?rev=1837233&r1=1837232&r2=1837233&view=diff > ============================================================ > ================== > --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original) > +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS Wed Aug 1 12:54:54 2018 > @@ -186,6 +186,17 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: > 2.4.x patch: http://home.apache.org/~jim/patches/client64.patch > +1: jim, > > + *) Add in mod_socache_redis from trunk > + trunk: http://svn.apache.org/r1768070 > + http://svn.apache.org/r1768120 > + http://svn.apache.org/r1768225 > + http://svn.apache.org/r1769712 > + http://svn.apache.org/r1769737 > + http://svn.apache.org/r1774610 > + http://svn.apache.org/r1828624 > + 2.4.x patch: http://home.apache.org/~jim/ > patches/socache_redis.patch > + +1: jim, > + > PATCHES/ISSUES THAT ARE BEING WORKED > [ New entries should be added at the START of the list ] > > > >
