> On Oct 25, 2019, at 6:59 AM, Graham Leggett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 24 Oct 2019, at 14:14, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> 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.
>
I'm fine w/ whatever we all decide.
