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

man, how did I get so far behind on my email...

I'd like to see us get this into httpd 2.2 for the reasons
previously outlined and think we need to get the work underway
as quickly as possible to determine how extensive the changes
are going to be and how fast progress can be made.

First order of business now that we are on SVN is to focus on
the APR changes that are needed. It's not clear to me though,
now that we have an APR 1.0 branch, is the trunk open for
API-breaking changes or do we need a separate branch for that work?

If we can make good progress towards a stable 64 bit APR 2.0 then
moving httpd 2.1/2.2 to it could make sense. The question is
whether there is enough feature freeze pressure to say that
64 bit does not warrant the wait...

I'd say let's see if we can make some progress first.
Any help that can be offered on this endeavour will be
greatly appreciated!

Allan

>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.
>
>
> Bill