Graham Leggett wrote: > 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.
Agreed, and which is entirely my point; that code review passed, and the new code hadn't actually been sufficiently reviewed. Just pointing this out to encourage people to thoroughly review the new API. >> * 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. Correct, so as we previously agreed, apr_ldap would be dropped from 2.0 if the project wishes to move ahead. > Whatever mistakes we make in v2.0 will have to wait till v3.0 to be fixed. Agreed.
