brane       2002/07/14 18:25:05

  Modified:    .        STATUS
  Log:
  
  
  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.167     +5 -4      apr/STATUS
  
  Index: STATUS
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: /home/cvs/apr/STATUS,v
  retrieving revision 1.166
  retrieving revision 1.167
  diff -u -r1.166 -r1.167
  --- STATUS	14 Jul 2002 20:32:34 -0000	1.166
  +++ STATUS	15 Jul 2002 01:25:05 -0000	1.167
  @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@
   
         1) Keeping the existing apr_time_t names, in spite of confusion
            with ANSI/C99 time_t's units, and prior decimal usec definition.
  -         +1: rbb, jerenkrantz, striker, dreid, jim, jwoolley
  +         +1: rbb, jerenkrantz, striker, dreid, jim, jwoolley, brane
            +0: wrowe [apr_types don't promise to map to C99/ANSI units]
            +0: brianp
            -1: aaron [veto for reusing the apr_time_t identifier for a new use]
  @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@
                fielding [prefers apr_utime_t and apr_utimediff_t (64bit)]
   	 +0.5: jim
            -0: jerenkrantz, dreid
  -         -0.5: rbb, jwoolley, striker
  +         -0.5: rbb, jwoolley, striker, brane
                  wrowe [prefers apr_utime_t and apr_uspan_t where u==undefined]
   
         3) Renaming the function to get rid of apr_time_t vs time_t confusion,
  @@ -91,12 +91,13 @@
            +0.5: wrowe,  [prefers apr_time_busec_t and apr_span_busec_t]
                  brianp, [can live with apr_time_busec_t and apr_span_busec_t]
                  fielding [me too]
  +         +0: brane
            -0: jerenkrantz
            -0.5: rbb, ianh, dreid, jim, jwoolley, striker
   
         4) Using time_t and struct timeval/tm
            +1: fielding (if apr_time is not an ADT)
  -         -1: brianp, wrowe, jwoolley
  +         -1: brianp, wrowe, jwoolley, brane
   
         [fielding: Is APR time guaranteed to be a scalar quantity?  If so,
          then we must include units as part of the definition of the