On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:39:17 +0100 Ruediger Pluem <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I guess with the 2.2.23 question you meant what to include in a > > 2.2.23 build done right now? Since we plan to have 2.2.24 soon (and > > I guess you are going to provide Windows binaries for 23 and 24), > > I'd say 2.2.23 is mostly interesting in case someone experiences an > > unexpected compatibility problem. In this case it would be saner to > > build 2.2.23 binaries using the original APR/APU versions > > 1.4.6/1.4.1. Anyone looking for the latest and greatest would > > switch to 2.2.24 including 1.4.6/1.5.1.
I concur, thanks for the response. > IMHO the previous procedure was to keep major.minor stable for APR / > APR-UTIL in the supplied tar ball and only increase to the latest > patch level of that major.minor. Only exception was if httpd needed > new features from APR / APR-UTIL major.minor (keeping major stable at > all times of course and only increase minor) which was also an > indication to the users that they need to use a new major.minor > version. Or do we decouple the APR / APR-UTIL version we put in the > tar ball from the minimum version detection for APR / APR-UTIL in the > httpd autoconf part? The major.prev version stops getting significant bug fixes, so although the version major must stay put, minor bumps are forward compatible. I can easily picture a user wanting to add a thirdparty module which depends on the major.current release of APR or APU, even if the core httpd code and bundled modules do not need it. Bill
