At 10:43 AM 8/30/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:54:45AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > It's time for a 2.1-dev tree, if we want to be playing with new ideas,
> guys.
> > If they test out clean and don't break compatibility [in any significant
> > way]
> > then they can be backported to 2.0.
>
>I dislike backporting things. I think we all need to be on the 'same
>version.' Heck, we have committers who refuse to use 2.0 ("it's not
>portable"). If we go to 2.1, then I want to see 2.0 closed for
>anything other than security fixes.
or -bug- fixes, surely. Some can be fixed trivially. Some need major
restructuring. Those trivial fixes need to continually go in. Why do you
suppose -most- of our users upgraded their 1.3.x -> 1.3.26, instead of
2.0.39?
Apache 1.3.26 Upgrade(Downgrade) Report
https://secure1.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200207/srvch.html?server=Apache&revision=Apache%2F1.3.26
Apache 2.0.39 Upgrade(Downgrade) Report
https://secure1.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200207/srvch.html?server=Apache&revision=Apache%2F2.0.39
To summarize, in July;
1,553,930 Apache 1.3.x web sites upgraded to a secure version.
1,547,430 Of those sites upgraded to 1.3.26
6,500 Of those sites upgraded to 2.0.39
Less than 1/2 of 1%.
>I don't think we have enough of a community to continue active
>development on two separate (but similar) trees. I don't want to
>start 2.1 and still see everyone adding features to 2.0. -- justin
I don't think we have enough -user- community to continue development
on any Apache 2.x. UNLESS we reconsider what we are doing wrong.
Breaking our users on every bugfix/point release would be a good start.
Seeing the successful completion of the PHP/Perl compatibility would
be a good finish.
Bill
