httpd-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: [VOTE] 2.1.3 as beta
Date Thu, 24 Feb 2005 04:37:22 GMT
At 07:34 PM 2/23/2005, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:

>On Feb 23, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>
>>That's been 'broken' forever and it's only because Subversion 1.2 wants to use private
mod_dav functions.
>
>They're not private mod_dav functions.  They're supposedly a public API, meant to be used
by mod_dav "provider" back-ends.  They just weren't all declared 'public' in win32-land, that's
all.

Uhm, no.  By that definition, all the pollution spewed from typical
Linux libraries would be considered 'public api.'  Other platforms
are using the construct to extract public symbol lists now, IIUC.

APR_DECLARE (DAV_DECLARE, etc)is our shorthand of what has been
publicizied and what is internal.

>> I don't see how that justifies blocking a beta.
>
>Agreed.  But it should block GA.

Actually, it should (if it can be fixed in these few days) be
part of the 2.1.4.

I'm a little curious - I understood we would tag an ALPHA, decide
if it was 'good enough', then call it BETA.  I certainly don't think
that the last tarballs were good enough for that.

So please, Ben, get us your patch to 2.1-dev - that's what that tree
is for, to make sure our module developers will be as happy with the
next release as most users inevitably are.  And we will discuss how
it can be backported if it can.

[I suspect it can, but requires an MMN minor bump as a 'new feature'
was added, and it will be the consumer's responsibility, e.g. svn,
to spell out that 2.0.xx is required.  We advertise everywhere that
since mid 2.0.4x all of our builds are binary compatible, and we
won't be changing that for feature pushes.]

Bill


Mime
View raw message