Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <00aa01c45301$a7c3db80$7500a8c0@goliath>
From: "David Reid" <david@jetnet.co.uk>
To: "Justin Erenkrantz" <justin@erenkrantz.com>,
	"William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Cc: "APR Dev List" <dev@apr.apache.org>
References: <02a401c4522a$cbbfb860$7500a8c0@goliath>
 <39248842D970FCABB9C9D048@uio-8021x-153-0-25-58.uio.no>
 <6.1.0.6.2.20040615114338.03f8b4f0@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: [REVIEW] issues for 1.0
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:53:24 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> At 04:50 AM 6/15/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >--On Monday, June 14, 2004 5:15 PM +0100 David Reid <david@jetnet.co.uk>
wrote:
> >
> >>- we need to decide if Ryan's proposed fix to the mutex_child_init
should
> >>stay or we stick with existing api. I've not been involved in it
heavily,
> >>BUT can we have some votes as otherwise I'll stick with what we have.
> >
> >My preference is to wait on this.  I think making such a drastic change
*right* before we go to 1.0 is asking for trouble.
>
> Leaving this unaddressed is the trouble.  I certainly understand your
hesitation,
> feel free to jump in and review the posts that started the discussion.

Agreed. Part of the rationale for this 1.0 push was to get these sorts of
issues out on the mailing list and discussed. I've yet to see conclusive
evidence from either Justin or Ryan that their approach should be the one we
use. As it now looks like it'll be Friday before I roll the initial 1.0 can
we please bring this to a conclusion? (Justin is probably off email for the
rest of the week so it's not ideal but his patch is available).

> Note I'm +1 to both this issue and the apr_status_t results from thread
fns,
> although the result code should be an opaque user-defined number similar
> to process termination results.

Care to submit a patch?

david