Re: 2.2 roadmap with respect to APR was Re: [NOTICE] CVS to SVN migration complete

["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