apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: APR 1.4 status (and backport)
Date Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:15:55 GMT
2009-10-02 20:31:07 Paul Querna napisaƂ(a):
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:52 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
> <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> > Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> With the hope for the httpd project to start pushing for a 2.4
> >> release, it has a dependency on apr 1.4 (actually 2.0, but I'm
> >> getting to that). Now that we have a pretty stable 1.3.x branch,
> >> I'd like us to put some effort into a 1.4.0 release. With that
> >> in mind, I'm also looking at backporting some 2.0 features to
> >> 1.4.0, esp the apr_pollcb_create_ex() (et.al.) stuff.
> >>
> >> Comments?
> >
> >  * any particular feature you work to copy from 2.0 to 1.4 without
> >   breaking 1.x.x binary ABI sounds terrific.
> >
> >  * including those backports, is 1.4.0 ready, or do we need to revert
> >   API's which are not sufficiently thought out?  The apr_crypto interfaces
> >   were rejected at 1.3.0, and it would be time to reopen that discussion.
> >   I'm pretty sure there haven't been enough eyeballs attending to this.
> >
> >  * a larger question, is 2.0.0 ready?  Are there additional API improvements
> >   required to call it baked?  Does it fix enough awkward bugs in the static
> >   1.x.x API's to suggest that users move over already?  If 2.0.0 is ready,
> >   I can see wisdom in not pushing out a 1.4 at all.
> >
> > If you didn't have a particular timetable, what if we used Tuesday hackathon
> > at ApacheCon to really push out a 2.0.0 or 1.4.0, resolving the last of the
> > open complaints f2f.  In the meantime, figure out what isn't suitable for
> > either 1.4.0 or 2.0.0, move whatever features you like to 1.4.0, and really
> > polish the build schema changes for 2.0.0, ensuring that it builds correctly
> > under the classic (deprecated) schemas or scons.
> >
> > Other thoughts about 1.4.0 or 2.0.0?
> 
> Do it way before apachecon IMO.  Wait until apachecon to _talk_ about
> it, we would be lucky to ship this year.
> 
> I'd like to at an absolute minimum have SCons working as the default
> build on win32, and a viable choice on *nix

AFAIK SCons still doesn't work with the newest versions of Python.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

Mime
View raw message