> At 06:30 PM 6/23/2004, David Reid wrote: > >> I'd like to suggest we hold our horses on apr-util and apr-iconv 1.0 - > >they > >> are seperate subsets with their own set of issues. > >> > >> APR 1.0 does not require apr-util or apr-iconv, there is no dependency. > >> So no holdup of David's plans. > > > >Well, I'd agree on apr-iconv (haven't even rolled a 1.0 rc yet) but apr-util > >needs to be released the same time as apr. Our 2 biggest users (httpd & svn) > >both use both (if that makes sense) so if we have apr 1.0, we have apr-util > >1.0. > > Well, we can't ignore apr-iconv, apr-util has a dependency upon it for > those platforms without a native port of iconv.
Hmmmm > But nothing precludes us from rolling up apr and dropping it upon the world, > then rolling up apr-util and dropping that 1.0.0 in a separate step. Sorry but that's a REALLY horrible precedent to set. "Yeah APR is 1.0 but apr-util isn't..." I agree there is no need to tie the versioning, but I think for the initial release of a "major" number they should be, so apr 2.0 and apr-util 2.0 should also be tied and released on the same date, whereas apr-util 1.1 can go out anytime. If people want to veto the candidate and force a retag with new code then that's one thing. when I roll 1.0 it'll be all 3 repo's at the same time, as will RC2. <snip> > >Why does this hold up an apr-util 1.0 ? Please elaborate further. > > Because apr-util 1.0 consumes apr-iconv, at least for non-unix distros. > > >It does slightly annoy me that there has been a decent sized interval to > >discsuss such issues and only now are they being brought up. > > Agreed - wish there were more eyes on the code. My attention was solely > focused on apr for the past weeks. I think we very nearly have that right, > so now i'm looking sideways at apr-util and how it could defy developer's > expectations. And the build breakage pointed out to me how wonky the > current apr-iconv API really was (and mostly, my fault in the first place :) Sorry you haven't had enough time (I know you've been busy), but there aren't any votes for/against this and we (I) imposed a deadline to avoid exactly this sort of drawn out delay. If the answer to the question "does what we have now work" is "yes" then apr-util 1.0 is good to go. Sorry, but eventually you have to make a decision. I haven't seen anyone state that what we have doesn't work, so I see no reason to hold things up for "yet another code tweak at the 11th hour". david
