apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: Showstopper ... was: Tagged the tree
Date Thu, 09 Jan 2003 23:56:46 GMT
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:02:10PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 03:43 PM 1/9/2003, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> >No. *YOU* have tried to stick to it. The versioning rules don't support this
> >position. APR hasn't gone final, so it isn't bound to any contract.
> 
> I am not the only one who helped with this effort.  Even if we aren't bound,
> there's no reason to be impolite when we can avoid it.

True, and I think we have been keeping that in mind. But something like the
error codes was just plain necessary. We were using a miserly 500 value
increment between the groups. Karl expanded that to 50000.

And it is that "necessary" that I'm talking about. httpd cannot hold us back
from what is Good for APR(UTIL).

> >> >IMHO, the proper thing to do is to branch off APR from where 2.0.43 went
off, call that API 1.0.  Apply relevant fixes as needed (bumping versions based on the version
rules - i.e. filepath_encoding bumps the minor).  Then, start on APR 2.0 with removal of deprecated
functions and we can change signatures as we like.  -- justin
> >
> >Agreed. I'd state that we make the 0.9.x branch for httpd, and change the
> >HEAD to be 0.10.x. When we feel cozy, then we can pop to 1.0.
> 
> I guess I'm confused... what does 0.10.x gain us, when we are free to introduce
> new APIs over the next generation?
> 
> In other words, what is wrong with blessing the current code as APR 1.0,
> less all deprecated facilities?

Because I'm not sure that people feel it is 1.0 quality. Are we ready to
tell the universe that APR is "API stable, and ready for all your needs" ?
It just doesn't feel that solid.

Maybe I'm being a bit too conservative. I *do* see your point about just
saying "yup. this is a 1.0 with all that entails. it is solid and robust,
but it is the *first* release."

> If there are such issues right now, they belong in STATUS.  It's been a little
> while since I visited that doc, so I'm wandering over there this evening.

I can't pinpoint anything, so I don't know what to put there :-)

I do think we need some more work on the apr/apr-util/httpd build
interaction. I wouldn't hold up a 0.9.2 or 0.10.0 release on that, but I
think it would be good to have that nailed down a bit better for 1.0.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Mime
View raw message