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: HEAD and releases
Date Wed, 16 Apr 2003 02:31:04 GMT
At 07:06 PM 4/15/2003, Joe Orton wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 05:22:22PM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
>> IOW, are we ready for 1.0?  By my reading of STATUS, we aren't there yet.
>That's the point I was trying to make - I think that whilst HEAD is
>constrained to being 0.9.2-compatible-ish, the changes required to make
>the API "1.0-worthy" can't be committed.  Or they are committed but #if
>0'ed out, so they don't get compiled, used or tested; to me a
>prerequisite for a "1.0-worthy" API would be that it has been compiled,
>used and tested for a reasonable period of time.

It should be as simple as a switch...

>I don't understand how APR will ever become 1.0-worthy if HEAD remains
>indefinitely constrained to being 0.9.2-compatible.

And I don't understand how we can imagine ourselves maintaining a stable
API if we are unable to move forward without breaking compatibility.

A few developers keep suggesting "we need to break things"

Nobody has ever provided a compelling example since the polls API change.
And stubbing old functions certainly shouldn't be "getting in the way" of
further progress twords a stable 1.0, should it?  Or better asked, is it?
Would you provide an example of a change that must occur?

Everything to eliminate all backwards compatibility thunks can be committed
in less than two hours, once we are ready to split 0_9 and 1_0 development.


View raw message