Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <6.1.0.6.2.20040702021425.02e20320@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 02:26:00 -0500
To: Branko =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C4=8Cibej?= <brane@xbc.nu>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: apr_finfo_t ctime field
Cc: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>, dev@apr.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <40E49E2B.1010708@xbc.nu>
References: <6.1.0.6.2.20040622152316.06d4d008@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
 <40E49E2B.1010708@xbc.nu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Wow - and time is almost gone.  Sorry this got no response until today,
I'm not sure the powers that be really care for this change to go in until
2.0 at this point (it's an eliminated ctime and added crtime & intime
member of a transparent structure that's user-allocated.)

Would be really nice to see one more bit of feedback before I commit
such a change - amazes me we are the only two folks considering
this issue.  Sander Striker on 4/27/03 and Brian Pane the day after
pondered this a while, but apparently we are the only two with any
real concern about the ambiguity.  Anyone else care to chime in?

At 06:28 PM 7/1/2004, Branko =C4=8Cibej wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>As we approach APR 1.0
>>
>>---
>>
>>is it time to address the ambiguity between ctime, which is actually the
>>inode file time stamp for unix, and the creation time stamp for win32?
>>
>>Persisting either ctime will propogate the confusion, I suggest splitting
>>them into intime and crtime.  Opinions?
>>
>>I'll offer an APR 1.0 patch tommorow based on feedback.
>>=20
>Yes, yes, yes. Sorry I didn't notice this before. This would be a very good=
 change.
>
>-- Brane