apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
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 14:53:29 GMT
On 3/9/2010 5:52 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 09 Mar 2010, at 1:46 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>> Hmmm - in that case it may make sense to drop the ifdef entirely,
>>> and if a
>>> unix platform is found to not support O_BLOCK, we can then make a
>>> call then
>>> as what to do. The ifdef could in theory be solving a problem we
>>> don't have.
>> I mis-worded this slightly -- I should have said "maybe no known
>> platforms have this issue".  I have no idea what the answer is.
> 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.

View raw message