apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com>
Subject Re: documented 1.0 showstoppers
Date Fri, 04 Jun 2004 05:28:04 GMT
--On Thursday, June 3, 2004 11:43 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr." 
<wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:

> What Ryan, Amit and I are asking for (and that most of the rest of the
> world who *doesn't* directly participate in apr/dev decisions) is that
> the API is right.

Again, I think there is confusion about the versioning rules: we can add in a 
brand new locking API into 1.1 - we just can't remove the old one until 2.0. 
So, I don't see the rationale for holding up 1.0 even if locking is 'broken.'
People have lived with this 'broken' API forever - I don't see the urgency.

Most likely scenario, the old locking API is deprecated in 1.1 when someone 
decides to get off their butt and 'fix' it.  If someone happens to provide 
fixes in, say, two weeks before 1.0 is frozen - all the better, then we could 
rip out the 'broken API' for 1.0.

And, if the locking change were drastic enough to warrant a major 
binary-incompatible change, so be it: we issue 2.0.  There's no reason we have 
to be conservative with our version numbers.  We've done *that* for long 
enough.  ;-)

> One peripheral question - does this mean we are suggesting that
> apr-util is also at 1.0?  Just asking.

Yes, I'd believe so.  Probably same for apr-iconv, too.  -- justin

Mime
View raw message