> Am 20.01.2017 um 21:37 schrieb Graham Leggett <[email protected]>:
>
> On 20 Jan 2017, at 7:47 PM, David Zuelke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'd actually like to question the whole practice of porting features back to
>> older branches. I think that's the core reason why trunk is in total
>> disarray, and why no substantial releases have been made. There is just no
>> reason for anyone to push forward the state of 2.6 or even 3.0 if you can
>> just backport whatever you want.
>
> The reason this is bad is because Apache httpd comes with a module ecosystem
> - when you move from httpd v2.0 to v2.2 to v2.4 to v2.6, or rules are that
> the ABI can break, and therefore all modules that depend on that version must
> be recompiled. This includes modules that are closed source and offered by a
> proprietary vendor, or are open source but provided in binary form by a
> distro.
>
> Right now, you can get new features on the httpd v2.4 branch, but ONLY if
> that feature does not break existing behaviour in any way. This is entirely
> reasonable, convenient, and what we’ve been doing since the 1990s.
Agree to the plan. I can see only one exception to this and that is the
experimental HTTP/2 support. The introduction of slave connections is NOT
ENTIRELY backward compatible. I try to make this as compatible as possible, but
there are limits.
>> [...]
>> I have said this in the other thread that hasn't gotten much traction ("A
>> new release process?"). The PHP team was in the exact same spot as HTTPD a
>> few years ago. No substantial progress, stale branches, no light at the end
>> of the tunnel, and a lot of fighting.
>
> We’ve had a significant amount of progress, a trunk that is so stable that
> almost all fixes and features can be backported to v2.4 without any fear of
> incompatibility, and the “fighting” is limited to very few individuals.
>
> We’re not broken, we don’t need fixing.
Agreed.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> —
>
Stefan Eissing
<green/>bytes GmbH
Hafenstrasse 16
48155 Münster
www.greenbytes.de
