You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2004/11/22 17:18:43 UTC
Re: 2.2 roadmap with respect to APR was Re: [NOTICE] CVS to
SVN migration complete
At 10:08 AM 11/22/2004, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>At 08:23 AM 11/20/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>>
>>>>So, my opinion is that we let Allen branch apr off now and let him go at it at a measured pace, but we shouldn't intend to hold httpd 2.2 for that. -- justin
>>>
>>>+1. Of course, I am assuming that his 64bit fixes will likely
>>>break binary compatibility.
>>
>>It does - that's the rub. And, for 2.2, this was always the plan.
>
>And that's precisely the reason we should attack the 64 bit problem for 2.2. This will give the 2.2 series a much longer life than if we push off the 64 bit work to 2.4.
+1 - well said. By the way, Allen was out for the week of
AC but returns this week, perhaps he can jump back into this
conversation.
Yes - I understand that this means 1.x will never be used by
httpd. Version numbers are cheap. The APR project should
become used to this, if they are active, and httpd moves at
it's normal pace, it would be easy to go through APR 2.x, 3.x,
and land somewhere in version 4.x by the time httpd 2.4 or 3.0
walks out the door.
Bill
Re: 2.2 roadmap with respect to APR was Re: [NOTICE] CVS to
SVN migration complete
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 11:08 AM 11/22/2004, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Yes - I understand that this means 1.x will never be used by
>> httpd. Version numbers are cheap. The APR project should
>> become used to this, if they are active, and httpd moves at
>> it's normal pace, it would be easy to go through APR 2.x, 3.x,
>> and land somewhere in version 4.x by the time httpd 2.4 or 3.0
>> walks out the door.
>
>Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?
How so?
Let's imagine the release -after- 2.2 takes another 12-18 months.
Perhaps the event mpm gets plugged in, and it takes three months,
alone, just to find all the gotchas of thread-jumping.
In the meantime, apr is adopted by other projects. These coders
offer up some solid functionality for their own applications, and
the apr team agrees.
Yes, I realize most of the time new functionality can be a minor
bump of apr. Yes, I realize apr has not been all that active in
the past 12 months. All I'm arguing is that apr shouldn't be
addicted to some 1:1 correspondence of httpd and apr bumps.
Bill
Re: 2.2 roadmap with respect to APR was Re: [NOTICE] CVS to
SVN migration complete
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 11:08 AM 11/22/2004, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Yes - I understand that this means 1.x will never be used by
>> httpd. Version numbers are cheap. The APR project should
>> become used to this, if they are active, and httpd moves at
>> it's normal pace, it would be easy to go through APR 2.x, 3.x,
>> and land somewhere in version 4.x by the time httpd 2.4 or 3.0
>> walks out the door.
>
>Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?
How so?
Let's imagine the release -after- 2.2 takes another 12-18 months.
Perhaps the event mpm gets plugged in, and it takes three months,
alone, just to find all the gotchas of thread-jumping.
In the meantime, apr is adopted by other projects. These coders
offer up some solid functionality for their own applications, and
the apr team agrees.
Yes, I realize most of the time new functionality can be a minor
bump of apr. Yes, I realize apr has not been all that active in
the past 12 months. All I'm arguing is that apr shouldn't be
addicted to some 1:1 correspondence of httpd and apr bumps.
Bill
Re: 2.2 roadmap with respect to APR was Re: [NOTICE] CVS to SVN
migration complete
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Yes - I understand that this means 1.x will never be used by
> httpd. Version numbers are cheap. The APR project should
> become used to this, if they are active, and httpd moves at
> it's normal pace, it would be easy to go through APR 2.x, 3.x,
> and land somewhere in version 4.x by the time httpd 2.4 or 3.0
> walks out the door.
Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?
Re: 2.2 roadmap with respect to APR was Re: [NOTICE] CVS to SVN
migration complete
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Yes - I understand that this means 1.x will never be used by
> httpd. Version numbers are cheap. The APR project should
> become used to this, if they are active, and httpd moves at
> it's normal pace, it would be easy to go through APR 2.x, 3.x,
> and land somewhere in version 4.x by the time httpd 2.4 or 3.0
> walks out the door.
Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?