Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:46:03 +0100
From: Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com>
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: RC5
Message-ID: <20040818154603.GC5803@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: dev@apr.apache.org
References: <411761A2.4070600@jetnet.co.uk> <20040818150521.GB5803@redhat.com>
 <1092842331.7095.20.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1092842331.7095.20.camel@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 08:18:51AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 16:05 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 12:36:02PM +0100, David Reid wrote:
> > > So, apart from the complaints about apr-util, are people happy that apr 
> > > RC5 is OK?
> > 
> > +1, RC5 looks good to me.  testall passes in both apr and apr-util on
> > RHEL3/{amd64,i686,ppc}, {RHEL2.1,FC1}/x86.  If you roll an RC6 then
> > please pick up apr/test/testpoll.c:r1.34 which is needed to get the
> > tests to pass with the epoll-based poll backend on a 2.6 kernel.
> 
> I thought the apr_pollset changes that add EPoll and KQueue support were
> not part of 1.0?

Hmmm, well, they are in there, but CHANGES is out of synch, so one of
those things should be changed, I've no particular preference which. 
Having CHANGES list 1.1 changes in the 1.0.0 tarball looks a bit odd
still.

joe