On 3 June 2010 10:40, Sander Temme <scte...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Jun 1, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> Considering that 2.3/trunk is back to limbo-land, I'd like >> to propose that we be more "aggressive" is backporting some >> items. Even if under experimental, it would be nice if slotmem >> and socache were backported. I also like the refactoring of >> the providers for proxy in trunk as compared to 2.2, but >> last time I suggested it, it looked like 2.3/2.4 was close(r) >> to reality... >> >> comments...? > > Amusingly (at least to me), I happened upon an old post by Joel Spolsky from > 2002: > > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/PickingShipDate.html > > "For Systems With Millions of Customers and Millions of Integration Points, > Prefer Rare Releases. You can do it like Apache: one release at the > beginning of the Internet Bubble, and one release at the end. Perfect." > > I personally think we have enough to release for users to chew on: > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/new_features_2_4.html > > PHP should largely move to FastCGI, so module compatibility should not be a > problem. Any idea about other popular modules? WSGI? mod_perl? Are they > ready for HEAD?
By you mentioning WSGI, are you asking whether mod_wsgi works against 2.3 trunk? If you are, the answer is that mod_wsgi trunk should work. Ie., unreleased version. Official tar ball releases of mod_wsgi will not work because of changes a while back in 2.3 to eliminate ap_accept_lock_mech from public API. If 2.3 is going to start progressing again before mod_wsgi 4.0 is released, I can always backport workaround for that to mod_wsgi 3.X branch. FWIW, although I haven't tried it, I suspect that even mod_python trunk will not build against Apache 2.3 as it makes use of ap_requires which vanished in 2.3. Graham
