apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andreas Magnusson <andreas.ch.magnus...@home.se>
Subject Re: New apr_stat/apr_dir_read behavior
Date Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:41:42 GMT
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 1/20/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> 
>> If you would like to see 1.2.3 (or 1.3.0) 'corrected' please offer a patch.
>> If you are asking for a backport to 0.9.8-dev, we would consider that as well
>> as long as there's no change to ABI and no change to the 'expected' behavior
>> of the functions.  Or, we have to add an ugly apr_foo_ex() which corresponds
>> to new 1.2 code.
>>
>> We hope someday soon 0.9 goes away, but with so many 2.0 apache and current
>> svn installed users, it will take some time, yet.
> 
> +1, I'd love to see a backport of this fix, especially if it happens
> in time for the next 0.9.x release.  We (where 'we' == subversion
> developers) are probably going to want to do a release of APR in the
> reasonably near future to push out BDB 4.4 support, since Subversion's
> starting to grow support for it now, and in order for that to be
> releasable we'll need a version of APR that has configure glue that
> will find it (which I already committed to APR, it just hasn't made it
> in to a release).
> 
> -garrett
> 

Sorry that I reply to the "wrong" reply, but I'm reading through gmane, 
and I'm not friend with my news reader at the moment.

First, sorry if I sounded off like I thought it was your (as in APRs) 
fault of the problem in Subversion. That was not the meaning.
I was more trying to set the record straight as to where the supposed 
problem came from (in the code).
I also believe that finding a map between user/group/world and ACLs is 
very difficult, perhaps impossible, so no real blame there!
I do *not* think that APR 1.2.2 is in error, but I have to punt the 
question if the change in apr_open_file() should be proposed for 
backport to the more seasoned APR developers, as I do not know if the 
new behavior would need a apr_foo_ex(), or if it would be considered 
"just a bug fix" (read: what is the expected behavior?).

Regards,
/Andreas


Mime
View raw message