On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > On 03 Jan 2017, at 2:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > >> So I'd like to know, in light of a perpetual chain of (often build and/or >> run-time breaking regression) enhancements, if there is support for a >> 2.4.24.x release chain during the 3.0 transition? And support for >> potentially 3x backports to 2.4.x, 2.4.24.x and 2.2.x, of really serious bug >> fixes? >> >> It's clear this project doesn't agree, so the question twists to how we >> agree to disagree. > > Can you clarify the problem you’re trying to solve?
There are multiple recent breakages in httpd. The backport proposal to 2.4 extending mod_dav would have introduced yet another. Other features on the table such as proxy protocol enhancement, or mod_status extensions all introduce more and more opportunities to introduce yet another release with regressions. I'm wondering if there is anyone interested in a regression-fix-only 2.4.26 that finally proves to be a workable upgrade for all httpd users? Only bug fixes which correct defects introduced during 2.4.x would be addressed. Then skip on to 2.4.27 with new regressions, and repeat the mop-up process in 2.4.28, etc. Most projects would call these 2.5.0 new features, 2.5.x regression and bug fixes, 2.6.0 new features, 2.6.x regression and bug fixes etc. But httpd seems to want to keep a unique numbering schema, because other numbering conventions weren't invented here. Is it really unreasonable to expect subsequent releases to not introduce new errors and become more error-free between enchancement releases?
