apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1790490 - in /apr/apr/branches/1.6.x: ./ include/ include/arch/unix/ locks/beos/ locks/netware/ locks/os2/ locks/unix/ locks/win32/ test/
Date Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:55:54 GMT


On 04/07/2017 04:31 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/07/2017 03:33 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/07/2017 10:37 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/07/2017 02:11 AM, ylavic@apache.org wrote:
>>>>>> Author: ylavic
>>>>>> Date: Fri Apr  7 00:11:27 2017
>>>>>> New Revision: 1790490
>>>>>>
>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1790490&view=rev
>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>> Merge r1790488 from trunk:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> locks: follow up to r1667900.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Axe the 'absolute' argument of apr_{thread,proc,global}_mutex_timedlock()
>>>>>> which was confusing, hence 'timeout' is always relative now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm. Doesn't that violate the APR versioning rules? IMHO you can change
an existing public API only in a major release
>>>>> aka. 2.0 in our case.
>>>>
>>>> Was never released (new to 1.6.x), does the rule apply?
>>>>
>>>
>>> IMHO that does not matter. Apps that run with 1.5.x are expected to run with
1.6.x. This wouldn't be the case here.
>>>
>>
>> Or are apr_{thread,proc,global}_mutex_timedlock() new to APR 1.6 and are not part
of 1.5.x and before?
> 
> Yes that's the case (new to 1.6, not in 1.5), so no possible
> regression but for the braves running 1.6.x :)
> 

Ah ok. Then it is fine of course.

Regards

RĂ¼diger

Mime
View raw message