Apache web server development

Jim Jagielski | 2 May 2005 21:33

Re: [PROPOSAL] Branch 2.1.x on May 13

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> 
> --On Monday, May 2, 2005 3:26 PM -0400 Jim Jagielski <jim <at> jaguNET.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > I'm +1 for branching 2.2-alpha... However, there are 2 outstanding
> > show-stoppers. Do we expect these to be addressed before the branch.
> > I think so, especially if they require API changes
> 
> Why couldn't we fix those up after the branch?  The point would be to stop 
> making 2.1.x a moving target so that we can fix the showstoppers.  -- justin
> 

I thought the whole idea about having a 2.1 dev version was to avoid
monkeying around with the API and the problems when we were doing
1.3 and 2.0. Once we branch, it is possible that we'll run into
issues that may require a bump, but I think entering into a 2.2
tree "expecting" one may not be prudent. And it's only the
2nd showstopper which could be considered "valid" enough to
delay the branch.

--

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim <at> jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
    "There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else."

headers

Justin Erenkrantz | 2 May 2005 21:36

Re: [PROPOSAL] Branch 2.1.x on May 13

--On Monday, May 2, 2005 3:33 PM -0400 Jim Jagielski <jim <at> jaguNET.com> 
wrote:

> I thought the whole idea about having a 2.1 dev version was to avoid
> monkeying around with the API and the problems when we were doing
> 1.3 and 2.0. Once we branch, it is possible that we'll run into
> issues that may require a bump, but I think entering into a 2.2
> tree "expecting" one may not be prudent. And it's only the
> 2nd showstopper which could be considered "valid" enough to
> delay the branch.

Paul proposed branching 2.1.x not 2.2.x.  -- justin

headers

Jim Jagielski | 2 May 2005 21:38

Re: [PROPOSAL] Branch 2.1.x on May 13

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> 
> --On Monday, May 2, 2005 3:33 PM -0400 Jim Jagielski <jim <at> jaguNET.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > I thought the whole idea about having a 2.1 dev version was to avoid
> > monkeying around with the API and the problems when we were doing
> > 1.3 and 2.0. Once we branch, it is possible that we'll run into
> > issues that may require a bump, but I think entering into a 2.2
> > tree "expecting" one may not be prudent. And it's only the
> > 2nd showstopper which could be considered "valid" enough to
> > delay the branch.
> 
> Paul proposed branching 2.1.x not 2.2.x.  -- justin
> 

Ahh yes. +1 then.

--

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim <at> jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
    "There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else."