apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Querna <c...@force-elite.com>
Subject RTC on 0.9.x? was Re: svn commit: r161087 - in apr/apr-util/branches/0.9.x: CHANGES include/apr_reslist.h misc/apr_reslist.c
Date Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:17:59 GMT
Paul Querna wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 
>> At 01:38 PM 4/12/2005, pquerna@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>> Author: pquerna
>>> Date: Tue Apr 12 11:38:21 2005
>>> New Revision: 161087
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=161087
>>> Log:
>>>
>>> Backport apr_reslist_timeout_set and apr_reslist_invalidate.
>>>
>>> These functions have been in 1.x for a long time.  I am personally 
>>> using them in apr_memcache, and lacking apr_reslist_invalidate was 
>>> the only reason I had to require APR 1.x.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please do NOT change the API on released branches without discussion.
>> They are RTC.
> 
> 
> I believe that RTC is present on HTTPD 2.0.x.
> 
> I believe APR 0.9.x is under CTR.

Looking back at recent commits, 'apr_threadattr_stacksize_set' was added 
  to 0.9.x in January. This was a back port from 1.x.  I find no record 
of any voting.

This would of fit your criteria of an API change/addition on a released 
branch.

I am open to putting 0.9.x under RTC officially, but it does not seem 
this has been an enforced policy. (Hence, it has always seemed CTR to me).

The STATUS file in APR and APR-Util does not say 0.9.x is under RTC. The 
httpd STATUS file for 2.0.x does mention that changes must be voted on.

If APR and APR-Util in the 0.9.x branch should be under RTC, that is 
fine with me.  I would prefer an official stance, and for that to be 
reflected in the STATUS files, rather than my commit getting picked out, 
when others have done CTR before.

-Paul

-Paul







Mime
View raw message