apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: apr_proc_other_child_read examined in depth
Date Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:09:59 GMT
At 12:00 AM 1/29/2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:48 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:
>
>>-1 on 0.9.2 till this issue is resolved.
>
>I don't really see why we should hold off on 0.9.2 because the current API is broken.
 We're not saying it is 1.0.

But it is worthless until we define an OC that someone can use to develop
apps (not especially httpd, but that is a good case study.)  OC is a fairly
reasonable need within a subset of service-type, robust applications.

>Or, do you plan on holding httpd 2.0.45 back as well?  If you still plan to have 2.0.45
out soon and your offer to co-RM 0.9.2 at the same time holds, then waiting is fine with me.
 

My plan is to tag 0.9.2.  Roll it.  Tag 2.0.45 (using 0.9.2) and roll the httpd 
release.  I think that would keep everyone happy.

>Otherwise, we should look at getting someone else (Garrett?) to RM.  =)

Well another APR committer needs to step up, but I think we all benefit
by dealing with this now, even if the release takes a few extra days.

>And, are you going to be able to fix this in a way that doesn't blow up backwards compatibility
with httpd's 2.0.42+? 

Damned straight.

Sure, if an old module used OC they might have unexpected results (just
like 2.0.44's access log failures were unexpected.)  I expect we will rename
and deprecate some function names and add some new accessors to make
this really portable.  But existing code won't be 'broken', it will just function
as badly as it did before :-)

Bill



Mime
View raw message