Ryan Bloom wrote:

> I don't understand why this is still being discussed.  The patch makes
> sense, it solves a real problem and just needs to be committed and tested.
> +1 on adding it to 1.0.0RC5 so that we can get the release out.

OK by me. I did debate just including the patch and rolling, but figured 
I'd give it another airing first...
>                                                                                 
> However, we need to remove the APR_STATUS_IS_SUCCESS macro before 1.0 goes
> out, because otherwise we are stuck with it for a very long time.

There were win32 comments from Brane? Is someone going to commit the 
changes needed?

david

> Ryan
> 
> 
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:29:14 +0100, Max Bowsher <maxb@ukf.net> wrote:
> 
>>
>>David Reid wrote:
>>
>>>The whole "release 1.0" movement seems to have run out of steam, so I
>>>propose that I'll just T&R what we have as RC5 and then if it works
>>>everywhere it'll be 1.0.0.
>>>
>>>Personally I think that releasing without the apr-config stuff in place
>>>would be a mistake, but there seem to be too many people raising
>>>obstacles to that for it to be sensible to wait. :(
>>
>>It seems there is more apathy than obstacles.
>>
>>Note that NO ONE has actually objected to any part of my patch except
>>whether the modified APR_FIND_FIND should have a mandatory or optional extra
>>argument!!!
>>
>>Please, people, its a pretty simple patch, and it's a very important for
>>sane packaging.
>>
>>Given the emphasis APR has placed on well-defined version compatibility,
>>publishing a defined set of rules, it would be a very great shame for 1.0.0
>>to actively hinder packagers from handling correct versioning of APR.
>>
>>So, please, review!
>>
>>Max.
>>
>>
> 
> 
>