We do not have 2.2 activity, it is fully baked and done, so we have 2.4 GA
releases. We would likely want to take 2.2 tarballs down sometime between
year end and mid-next year (12 mos anniversary) to avoid further confusion.
Patches for security defects in 2.2 will continue to be accumulated until
year end.

As written up at http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html

"With the introduction of Apache 2.1, the Apache httpd project has adopted
an odd-even release strategy, where development happens with alpha and beta
releases assigned an odd-numbered minor version, and its general
availability (stable) release is designed with the subsequent even-numbered
minor version. E.g. 2.1.0-alpha through 2.1.6-alpha were followed by
2.1.7-beta through 2.1.9 beta, and cumulated in the 2.2.0 general
availability release."

So you can look at 2.5.x releases as "dev", yes. a GA 2.5.x would either be
named 2.6.0 or 3.0.0 at the project committee's discretion. That's a call
that happens after the scope of 2.5.x changes are reviewed, or earlier if
an absolutely breaking change occurs during the 2.5.x incremental changes.

Hope that clarifies httpd versioning.



On Nov 2, 2017 11:40, "Jacob Perkins" <jacob.perk...@cpanel.net> wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> Could you clear up some confusion for me?
>
> We have
> 2.2 and 2.4.
>
> Is 2.5 the ‘dev’ branch of 2.6? Or are we going 2.2 => 2.4 => 2.5?
>
> —
> Jacob Perkins
> Product Owner
> *cPanel Inc.*
>
> jacob.perk...@cpanel.net
> Office:  713-529-0800 x 4046 <(713)%20529-0800>
> Cell:  713-560-8655 <(713)%20560-8655>
>
> On Nov 2, 2017, at 3:41 AM, Daniel Ruggeri <drugg...@primary.net> wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
>
>    As has been chatted about in other threads, I hope to T&R 2.5.0-alpha
> in the coming days. I suppose notice is too soon to do so this evening,
> so I'll plan for early next week.
>
>    Also, as a side note, part of my motivation to be more involved as RM
> is to help establish a more regular release cadence. I envision a world
> where much of the drudgery of our RM processes are automated and have
> begin putting together some scripts to help with that goal. Nothing
> beats practice, though, to identify *all* the places that have to be
> automated so hopefully after this alpha is out the door we'll be in a
> good spot with some scripts and as minimal-as-possible manual procedures.
>
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
>
>
>

Reply via email to