apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@apache.org
Subject Re: Versioning before time please
Date Tue, 13 Aug 2002 23:21:49 GMT
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 03:10:14PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Uh oh. Looks like we'll be hashing this out again :)
> Which is exactly why we should table the time discussion until
> we have a versioning system *enforced*.
> Aaron has explicitly veto'd any changes to apr_time_t that cause
> broken binary compatibility (i.e. changing the meaning of
> apr_time_t but not the API).  Whether I agree or disagree doesn't
> matter.  It's a valid veto and I've spent too much time arguing
> (and then agreeing) with Aaron about this.
> The one thing we agreed upon was that if we have the versioning in
> place, then we can do whatever we want to apr_time_t since the app
> has a way of knowing that binary compatibility isn't met.

A versioning mechanism doesn't give you carte blanche to break binary
compat, it just lets users know if you have.

> So, let's get versioning enforced, and then we have a mechanism for
> breaking (or enhancing) apr_time_t.  And, at this point, I don't
> care much what happens to apr_time_t.  My only requirement is that
> if it changes and we don't bust the API, then we have to bump the
> version.  -- justin

Like I have said for a while, just leave time along.  Apps should use
time_t if they don't want microsecond resolution.


Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
550 Jean St
Oakland CA 94610

View raw message