At 12:00 AM 1/29/2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >--On Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:48 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL >PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>-1 on 0.9.2 till this issue is resolved. > >I don't really see why we should hold off on 0.9.2 because the current API is >broken. We're not saying it is 1.0.
But it is worthless until we define an OC that someone can use to develop apps (not especially httpd, but that is a good case study.) OC is a fairly reasonable need within a subset of service-type, robust applications. >Or, do you plan on holding httpd 2.0.45 back as well? If you still plan to >have 2.0.45 out soon and your offer to co-RM 0.9.2 at the same time holds, >then waiting is fine with me. My plan is to tag 0.9.2. Roll it. Tag 2.0.45 (using 0.9.2) and roll the httpd release. I think that would keep everyone happy. >Otherwise, we should look at getting someone else (Garrett?) to RM. =) Well another APR committer needs to step up, but I think we all benefit by dealing with this now, even if the release takes a few extra days. >And, are you going to be able to fix this in a way that doesn't blow up >backwards compatibility with httpd's 2.0.42+? Damned straight. Sure, if an old module used OC they might have unexpected results (just like 2.0.44's access log failures were unexpected.) I expect we will rename and deprecate some function names and add some new accessors to make this really portable. But existing code won't be 'broken', it will just function as badly as it did before :-) Bill
