apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko ─îibej <br...@xbc.nu>
Subject Re: [discuss] Releasing pre-release APR
Date Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:06:46 GMT
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> In light of current events, here's a policy statement I'd like to propose
> for consideration (just a discussion item at this point);
>   The APR project strongly discourages any release of the APR software
>   with modifications of the API.  This includes shipping ".0-dev" pre
>   release source code which has not yet been adopted in an official APR
>   release.  Any such use is in violation of the Apache APR trademark.
>   Private releases which include API modifications must not use the name
>   Apache APR and must not use the same publicly installed library and header
>   file names, or must not be installed or configured to be installed to the
>   platform-specific, conventional shared paths such as /usr/bin/, /usr/include,
>   %windir%\system32 etc.  Nothing in this policy precludes the application
>   of patches or bug fixes conforming to the released API, although the Apache
>   APR project strongly encourages authors to submit such fixes to the project.
>   Snapshots of the current development trees are available for a short period
>   of time at http://svn.apache.org/snapshots/, these are not provided for
>   redistribution.  Developers are encouraged to test against these snapshots
>   or the SVN development tree, propose API enhancements and patches to the
>   project, and participate in the API discussion.  See the guidelines at;
>   http://apr.apache.org/patches.html for additional details.

"Violation of the Apache APR trademark"? For distributing modified APR
code? Are you serious? You are, among other things, explicitly
forbidding drop-in re-implementations which our license pretty much
expressly allows. -1, and if this is a snipe at that recent httpd-alpha
release, which "in light of current events" it appears to be, -2.

Really, Bill, this is going too far. This is *not* how you solve ABI
compatibility issues. You're reacting as if someone stole your baby or

-- Brane

View raw message