On 24 Oct 2019, at 14:14, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > Going from 2.4.x to 2.6.x implies an ABI break... Up to now, all backports > from trunk have maintained the 2.4.x ABI backwards compatibility. > > So I would propose that if we do the below, which I am fine w/ BTW, that the > 1st issues we tackle after branching 2.6.x from httpd-24 are all the ABI > changes. > > Yes, there is a lot of cool stuff in trunk. There is also a lot of, IMO, > untested and wonky stuff that I would be somewhat worried about releasing... > So that's why I like basing 2.6.x off of 2.4.x rather than trunk.
I would rather we stick to our existing practise of branching off trunk, then evaluating what we want in 2.6 and explicitly removing what we don't want. This is what we did when 2.4 came out, and it worked well. > FTR: Both APR and httpd have similar versioning guidelines (semver)... I > don't see the attraction or need to revisit it. I don’t want us reinventing any wheels. The goal here is to get v2.6 out the door, not reinvent our long established processes from scratch, particularly when the work on the processes sucks time out of work on httpd’s codebase itself. Regards, Graham —
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
