Backporting rlm_rest to 2.1.x

[alan buxey]

Hi,

>    Thanks Alan.  Pretty much the answer I was expecting but not the one I was
>    hoping for.
>    3.0 is not mature enough for my requirements, especially as you say there
>    are significant architectural changes.

how do you designate 'mature' software?  old software can and does have bugs too -
well used software might be 'mature' in way of updates/patches but then you
have no features.   we need more people to be running 3.0 so that we can find
any other issues and maybe see a sooner release or 3.0.1 etc

I've only running 3.0 HEAD on my test systems now - no longer looking at 2.1.x or
2.2.x updates - and it wont be long before it'll be just 3.x on production systems
too.

alan