At 05:05 AM 2/26/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Lars Eilebrecht wrote: > > > According to Justin Erenkrantz: > > > > > -0. I personally believe that this shouldn't be backported. If > > > you want this, you should use 2.0. > > > > I tend to agree. -0 from me as well. > > > > There will always be a nice feature which could be backported, > > but IMHO we should avoid it unless there is a _very_ good reason. > >Standing in the way of honest people who have to get their days work done >(and who for some arcane reason are tied to 1.3) fo the sake of 'forcing' >the world to 2.0 is not the right thing. Apache is tied into too many >operations systems for those sort of upgrade tactics to be effective. > >But making things painfull by -and- allow the closing down of 1.3 >forcefully -and- 2.0 being a moving target is not the right thing.
100% Agreed. However, I also agree we do not want to destabilize the 2.0 program [look at what a moving target the MPM architectures are on 2.0 - we don't want 1.3 to suffer the same.] If the author has gone to the effort - and this is only used for installs using one of several management tools - this is _the_ perfect use of /dist/httpd/contrib/patches. We were extremely anxious about tacking in the HTTP/1.1 proxy changes. Took us a year to accept them as 'ready', a year of some hard work by the proxy-dev list. For some 5 revs or so, the patch was available. It wasn't widely adopted, but folks did grab it, and contribute their feedback. This helped assure that rolling it into apache-1.3 cvs wouldn't harm the server. Can we please accept this backport and make it available in either patches/ or contrib/, to reflect the effort our contributor has already gone to? And if over a few versions, some folks get testing, and report the change is stable across platforms, then we would roll this improvement in. If we never released another 1.3, it would still be available for those who need it. >A '-0' or '-1' should be given for more technical reasons in my opinion. >And for those simply not interested in the 1.3 branch - then do not vote >or give it a '0'. Bravo. It's not unreasonable to reject code to 1.3 that is unsupported in 2.0 [with a port or patch] but if someone is willing to hack the 2.0 as well as 1.3 code, then it's silly to stand in their way over 'this branch is dead code.' Bill
