On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:52 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > Jim Jagielski wrote: >> With the hope for the httpd project to start pushing for a 2.4 >> release, it has a dependency on apr 1.4 (actually 2.0, but I'm >> getting to that). Now that we have a pretty stable 1.3.x branch, >> I'd like us to put some effort into a 1.4.0 release. With that >> in mind, I'm also looking at backporting some 2.0 features to >> 1.4.0, esp the apr_pollcb_create_ex() (et.al.) stuff. >> >> Comments? > > * any particular feature you work to copy from 2.0 to 1.4 without > breaking 1.x.x binary ABI sounds terrific. > > * 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. > I'm pretty sure there haven't been enough eyeballs attending to this. > > * 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. > > If you didn't have a particular timetable, what if we used Tuesday hackathon > at ApacheCon to really push out a 2.0.0 or 1.4.0, resolving the last of the > open complaints f2f. In the meantime, figure out what isn't suitable for > either 1.4.0 or 2.0.0, move whatever features you like to 1.4.0, and really > polish the build schema changes for 2.0.0, ensuring that it builds correctly > under the classic (deprecated) schemas or scons. > > Other thoughts about 1.4.0 or 2.0.0?
Do it way before apachecon IMO. Wait until apachecon to _talk_ about it, we would be lucky to ship this year. I'd like to at an absolute minimum have SCons working as the default build on win32, and a viable choice on *nix, but ENOTIME with everything else I've got going on this fall. -Paul
