Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of paul@querna.org designates
 209.85.210.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4B280827.2020006@rowe-clan.net>
References: <20091215150529.GA22442@redhat.com> <4B27F8BB.2090704@xbc.nu>
	 <4239a4320912151316q29a32690tcfa70f91900389a3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4B27FF78.8070705@rowe-clan.net> <4B2801EF.4000800@xbc.nu>
	 <4B280827.2020006@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:42:29 -0800
Message-ID: <4239a4320912151442u5127fe35n44b4c1b71847f380@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] APR versioning rules w.r.t. released snapshots
From: Paul Querna <paul@querna.org>
To: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Branko_=C4=8Cibej?= <brane@xbc.nu>, dev@apr.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Branko =C4=8Cibej wrote:
>> William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>> Unfortunately the APR versioning rules do not tell the developer not to=
 compile
>>> against or link to -dev, while this gives the user no indication of wha=
t they
>>> are doing to their APR installation.
>>>
>>
>> in that, you're correct. One would expect that developers do assume
>> that, but it needs to be documented. Why not add that bit to
>> versioning.html? It's quite a reasonable addition.
>>
>> For example, Subversion, which uses the exact same versioning rules as
>> APR, regularly ships rlease candidates marked "-rc" and no-one worries
>> about breaking the ABI to fix a bug between an RC and a release.
>
> Should apr_initialize and friends be programmed to go 'bang' and drop out
> with a stderr emit, if compiled against a x.y.0-dev release and run again=
st
> x.y.*[1-9]? =C2=A0Or, at least a stderr warning at initialization time?
>
> Seems like a simple, sensible fix.
>


No, APR is a library, it has no ownership over stderr/stdout.