On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote: > It seems we converge against keeping 2.4.x requirements and base line > as is, but want a modern one for trunk. > > But unless that is released in a 2.6.x it won't mean a thing. Especially > when people want to keep the old code in for portability of fixes to 2.4. > > Can't have it both ways, I think. Did I miss something?
I agree there is little value in a trunk-only requirement bump if there is never a subsequent release. But without knowing what the future holds, I think drawing a line in the sand now while it's on our minds is still pretty reasonable, and probably makes the next bump easier depending on when a later release comes together. I don't see why the old code would be (necessarily) problematic to retain though. If it is, then I'd be looking at the long-term outlook for 2.4 to see which is the lesser f two evils. (my 2c not at full face value -- I have little stake in mod_ssl/openssl)
