On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 03:10:14PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Uh oh. Looks like we'll be hashing this out again :)
Which is exactly why we should table the time discussion until we have a versioning system *enforced*. Aaron has explicitly veto'd any changes to apr_time_t that cause broken binary compatibility (i.e. changing the meaning of apr_time_t but not the API). Whether I agree or disagree doesn't matter. It's a valid veto and I've spent too much time arguing (and then agreeing) with Aaron about this. The one thing we agreed upon was that if we have the versioning in place, then we can do whatever we want to apr_time_t since the app has a way of knowing that binary compatibility isn't met. So, let's get versioning enforced, and then we have a mechanism for breaking (or enhancing) apr_time_t. And, at this point, I don't care much what happens to apr_time_t. My only requirement is that if it changes and we don't bust the API, then we have to bump the version. -- justin
