Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:17:52AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > > >>No, that's exactly the problem we have with 1.3 right now. There *are* >>people who are willing to backport fixes and even features to the 1.3 >>tree, it's only a faction of the group here that *doesn't* want that to >>happen. I see no reason to close any httpd source tree. If it's just one >>person complaining that they don't want to backport their changes, then >>they shouldn't do it. This is a volunteer organization, do only what you >>want to do, but don't prevent anyone else from have the same abilities. >> >> > >Um. I refuse to get stranded in 2.1 if I'm the only sucker there. >I don't want to spend *my* time forward-porting fixes because >everyone else is still on 2.0. That's a ridiculous waste. I'd >be spending all my time merging. >
Yeah, that's my biggest concern about a 2.1 branch. I suspect that most of the other things in the roadmap file may really be 2.0 features, even though they're listed as 2.1 and 3.0. Adding an event-loop MPM, for example, could be a 2.0 feature if we can make it work without breaking the 2.0 architecture. >I honestly don't care where this ends up. It just needs to get >in to our tree somewhere. The aaa code is broken. It needs to >be fixed (and I believe the patches we already have start the >process). 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 1.4 - whatever. I'm perfectly happy >to break backwards-compatibility. -- justin > > I wouldn't object to breaking aaa backward compatibility in 2.0, if it eliminates (for now) the need to start 2.1. Brian
