Bill, your Email client is messed-up again, as related to how it handles copy/pasted text in replies.
> On Jan 3, 2017, at 9:07 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2017 02:19, "Graham Leggett" <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > > > Can you clarify the problem you’re trying to solve? > > > > v3.0 and v2.6 are just numbers. For modest changes, we move to v2.6. For a > > very large architecture change (for example, the > addition of filters in > > v1.x to v2.x), we move to 3.0. > > > > Is there a very large architecture change planned by anybody? > > > > In my experience, things that felt initially like big changes have actually > > turned out to be rather modest changes that are > still possible to > > backport to v2.4 without an issue. For this reason I haven’t seen a reason > > to push very hard for v2.6, > > never mind v3.0. > > I do, the very specific problem is that trunk/, and therefore all > more-than-modest (or just neglected) contributions are now four years stale > and abandoned. > > A certain way to push off contributors is to ignore their patch submissions. > The second method is to commit them to a dead fork. > > If trunk/ is a dead fork, it may be time for httpd to admit this, trash it > and re-fork trunk from 2.4.x branch. Who said this? Who even implied it? And how do you align what you just wrote with your complaints when people try to "encourage" backports of stuff in trunk to 2.4.x? There are some things in trunk that admittedly can't be backported, and those, if worthwhile, should be reason and rationale for getting httpd-next out. The issue, if I may be so bold, is that some people likely don't want to spend the time and trouble backporting because other people use that as an opportunity to shout out "No more enhancements on 2.4! You are wasting your time!" and who, after all, wants to deal with the potential drama? Personally, I would <3 to see the additional async stuff in people's hands asap. > > Beyond this, see the recent appeal for major.minor breaking change wish list > on trunk/STATUS, that is a different thread for you to chime in on. > > Back to topic, who is interested in a stable release chain, since 2.4.x has > not been that? IMO, 2.4.x has been that. I see no real justification to suggest otherwise.
