William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > * including those backports, is 1.4.0 ready, or do we need to revert > API's which are not sufficiently thought out? The apr_crypto interfaces > were rejected at 1.3.0, and it would be time to reopen that discussion.
The apr_crypto interfaces were rejected at v1.3.0, completely thrown out and rewritten from scratch specifically addressing the original issues with v1.3.0. The reasons for the original v1.3.0 objections have been gone for a very long time. > * a larger question, is 2.0.0 ready? Are there additional API improvements > required to call it baked? Does it fix enough awkward bugs in the static > 1.x.x API's to suggest that users move over already? If 2.0.0 is ready, > I can see wisdom in not pushing out a 1.4 at all. The LDAP issue in v2.0 needs fixing, and that needs to be done properly, not rushed for the benefit of getting httpd out the door. Whatever mistakes we make in v2.0 will have to wait till v3.0 to be fixed. Regards, Graham --
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
