Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 58032 invoked by uid 500); 19 Sep 2001 16:20:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 57968 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2001 16:20:41 -0000 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:20:16 -0700 From: Justin Erenkrantz To: Ryan Bloom Cc: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: Release time? Message-ID: <20010919092016.Y12417@ebuilt.com> References: <20010919151902.2D44646DFD@koj.rkbloom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010919151902.2D44646DFD@koj.rkbloom.net>; from rbb@covalent.net on Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 08:19:01AM -0700 X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1-pre3 (http://amavis.org/) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 08:19:01AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > I would like to move APR to a releasable state finally. To do this, we need to > finish the locking API at the very least. Does anybody have other issues that > need to be resolved? Oh, I'd like to consider Sander's pool re-implementation and Madhu's shared memory patch. Both of these don't change the API, so I don't think it affects the "releasability" of APR. (I think releasable state means that no API changes occur without three +1s - code may still be C-T-R - that's my take on it...) They can wait until I get around to it, or someone beats me to it. -- justin