Graham Leggett
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:30:08 -0800
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.
Regards, Graham --