Personally, I don't think that backporting stuff to 2.4 prevents or disallows development on 2.6/3.0. In fact, I think it helps. We can easily do both... after all, we are still "working" on 2.2.
As I have also stated, my personal belief is that 2.4 is finally reaching some traction, and if we "turn off" development/enhancement of 2.4, we will stop the uptake of 2.4 in its track. We need to keep 2.4 viable and worthwhile we, at the same time, work on 2.6/3.0. I think we all understand that getting 2.6/3.0 out will not be a quick and/or painless action. Maybe the whole thing revolves around us mistakenly using the term "2.6/3.0"... I seen trunk as something that could become 2.6 in "short order", if that's the direction we want to go. But there is also the need and desire to really clean-up the codebase (r->uri is the common example used), which means a codebase which is more 3.0 related, and therefore, more extensive and thus taking more time. However, by us using the term "2.6/3.0" it muddies the water, and implies that 2.6 could be much more pervasive that it already is. The long and short is that there is good stuff in trunk. It should be available to our users sooner rather than later. If you want to call that 2.6, fine. What I don't want to see, since I don't think it is a viable solution, is for us to say "OK, let's tag trunk as 2.5 with the goal of getting 2.6 out soon... But hold on, this is broken and we need to completely refactor this. And this is weird, let's strip this out and replace it with this... And while we are at it, let's change this to do that" with the end result that 2.5/2.6 takes ages and 2.4 is left fallow. And, to be honest, I think that is exactly what will happen. The turd will never be polished enuff. And our community suffers. So, to make it crystal clear, I am 100% FOR httpd-next-gen. All I am saying is that we have an existing user base which is still mostly on 2.2, much less 2.4, and they are currently at a disadvantage by not having access to the latest and greatest stuff which is locked away in trunk and could be available for them, *while httpd-next-gen is being worked in parallel*. Nothing is preventing people from playing on trunk... But my feeling is that most people like hacking code that people eventual run in short order and in a timely timeframe. Waiting 6-12-18 months for "new features" is how commercial s/w works, not FOSS. https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2/all I will ignore the likelihood that httpd-next-gen will require APR 2.0 which may also take a long time to be released. > On Dec 23, 2016, at 3:28 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > For me, it would be moving as much as we can from > trunk to 2.4 > > -1. To echo your frequent use of media to emphasize > the point, with a song nearly as old as us; > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsCyC1dZiN8 > > Next step is to actually end enhancements alltogether > against 2.4 (we've done that some time ago, security > issues notwithstanding, on 2.2), and push all of the > enhancement effort towards 3.0 (2.5-dev). Of course, > we should continue to pick up bug fixes and help those > still on 2.4 have a good day. > > Let those users looking for cool new things pick up > the 3.0 release. > > Or else you are kicking 'everything we can't' further > down the road, again dismissing all of the activity > of so many of our fellow committers. Stale stuff on > trunk/ now dates to over 4 years ago. > > That state of things simply sucks. >
