apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: apr_token_* conclusions
Date Fri, 27 Nov 2015 19:15:51 GMT
On 27.11.2015 15:59, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 2015, at 8:49 PM, Branko Čibej <brane@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> In any case — I don't think anyone over at dev@s.a.o would object to APR
>> including those functions. We actually have a number of other, heh,
>> improvements on APR that we could "donate"; we just never really got
>> around to producing the necessary patches.
> Yeah, svn is in the same situation as httpd. There are
> some functions would "ideally" would exist in APR,
> but APR doesn't move "fast enough" to allow that to
> happen, so both projects start collecting APR-like
> kruft after awhile...
>
> It certainly would be nice if there was someway to address
> that...

Uh, what I wrote is in no way intended to be a criticism of APR. Maybe
if people who think APR isn't moving fast enough spent their time
writing code here instead of writing mails about it, this "problem"
would just vanish. At least, that's my understanding of how open source
is supposed to work -- right, Jim? ;)

-- Brane

Mime
View raw message