At 12:28 PM 1/9/2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >--On Thursday, January 9, 2003 11:17 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > >>yuck... >> >>move Sander's tag back or back out the change to APR until the >>window just prior to 1.0? > >As has been pointed out, APR 1.0 must maintain backwards-compatibility with >what we're using right now for httpd.
No... as Jeff reminded us, APR 0.9.x must retain backward-compat. >In essence, we already froze the APR API the second httpd-2.0 branched off >since httpd guaranteed binary compatibility forever (which includes APR). >Perhaps we should start considering moving to APR 2.0 *very* soon. No, as I original proposed, httpd-2.2 will target APR 1.0. In fact, httpd-2.2 won't even be released until APR hits that magic number. All the old cruft deprecated over the development history of APR 0.9.x will evaporate. And I'd even go so far as suggest that the httpd project will be encouraged to choose the most recent, stable APR tag for each of its releases as the APR 1.x evolves. >Reverting the change seems like we have an extremely broken versioning process >somewhere. I hate that httpd is affecting APR. -- justin Committing the change was the breakage. It violated -our- versioning rules. With the holidays, many eyes had been distracted elsewhere, so now we are just playing catch-up to catch invalid commits. I *like* these changes, but they don't belong in APR 0.9.x. Just mark them deferred. Better yet, we started using the syntax; #ifdef APR_ENABLE_FOR_1_0 /* not yet */ newdecl #else currentdecl #endif Which would at least document what we are going to do to people when APR evolves to 1.0. Bill
