apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm>
Subject Re: svn commit: r920017 - in /apr/apr/branches/1.4.x: ./ file_io/unix/open.c include/apr_file_io.h
Date Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:07:08 GMT
On 09 Mar 2010, at 4:53 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

>> In theory, when people try apr v1.5 for the first time, we're likely
>> to find out. I suspect it may be worth assuming support is present,
>> and then if it turns out that a platform that is still used doesn't
>> support it, we can then reintroduce the ifdef (and ENOTIMPL).
> -1 veto, please revert the backport.
> If you are experimenting on users, can we please keep that activity to
> trunk?  Some of us here are committed to offering developers a stable
> library of features they can count on.  Thanks in advance.

You're vetoing a patch that I haven't even written yet??? Based on us  
"experimenting" on a branch that hasn't been released yet???

What I was suggesting was to remove the #ifdef and make the assumption  
that O_NONBLOCK is supported on all unix platforms on apr v1.5, and  
fixing this assertion if it turns out to not be true *before*  
releasing v1.5.0. If you believe this is too onerous on users that's  
entirely fine, but then say so. There is no need to wave around a -1  
in the air, I am perfectly happy to accept your objection without  
being bashed over the head with a veto.


View raw message