Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.2.20041207075452.089839c0@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 07:56:06 -0600
To: dev@apr.apache.org
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: apr_sha1
Cc: Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <41B5A2DC.6080404@btopenworld.com>
References: <20041205125358.GA15076@localhost.localdomain>
 <20041205135328.GB10093@redhat.com>
 <6.2.0.14.2.20041206110846.06b44670@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
 <41B5A2DC.6080404@btopenworld.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 06:32 AM 12/7/2004, Julian Foad wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>This simply isn't a good idea until 2.0.
>
>Does the project have a standard place to record proposed API changes for the next major version so that they are not forgotten when that time comes?  If not, may I suggest putting this in the STATUS file under a heading like "For version 2"?

Add an @bug to the doxygen comments for such functions, 
in the form of a patch.

I don't remember if you answered Joe's question of which
was the right answer - both use an apr_status_t or neither?

Bill