On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Philip M. Gollucci <pgollu...@p6m7g8.com> wrote: > On 2/19/2011 2:50 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote: >> I guess my question is how would this be any different from what we're >> doing now? Is anyone actively working on mod_perl 1 development, >> except when a security issue is raised? > Its 'official', good practice, and prudent :)
+1 for releasing 1.32 - there is a non security compilation fix, and I'll be committing another change discussed off list. The more I think about it, the less it makes sense to spend tuits on retiring mp 1.3. I would however say that future versions of Apache::Test et al should not need to support mod_perl 1 at the same time as supporting mod_perl2. For instance, the next release of Apache::Reload could be Apache2::Reload. It can use Apache2::Build to do all the mp2 bootstrapping. It is unlikely that someone out on the list will get an itch and fix an issue with Apache::Reload on mod_perl 1 at this point. If they do, the best practice would be to put it in their own repository; I don't see hordes of mp1 contributors suddenly showing up and showering us with patches :) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@perl.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@perl.apache.org
