> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 12:24:31AM +0100, David Reid wrote: > >... > > The proposed change to apr_initialise is presently veto'd by Greg, though > > there are a lot of +1's. I'm still hopeful Greg can explain his veto. That > > said there isn't a patch available yet, so I'm forced to say that this is > > bumped to 1.1, even though it could well be an api change. I'm guessing it > > could (possibly) be done by adding another function, so maybe we can avoid > > the change. > > Heh. I had no idea what this was about. Needed to go look it up. Here is > my response/rationale for the veto: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apr-dev&m=102928661608249&w=2
Thanks Greg. That states your position nicely. I see no reason why we can't have an additional functionality that could provide what people wanted with that. Additional functionality is fine for 1.1, so this matter is bumped to 1.1 :-) I suspect that the STATUS item should be reworked and another discussion had about this in about 3 months (when the dust from 1.0 settles). david
